Micro 745: Beyond Death [Endgame]

[Hopkirk]

second!

VOTE: cheeky for playing in so games even though you joined after me!

so many games, i mean.

North is clearly trying to make it look like he's not paying attention to what he's writing to make us think he's town. I can't think of any other explination whatsoever for someone making any kind of mistake ever.

VOTE: North

[Hopkirk]

Hopkirk are you implying that scum don't make errors or are you being sarcastic? Also, NSG is female.

The (sarcastic) implication is that town can't make errors.
People have accused me before of mixing 'scum' and 'town making mistakes' up too much.

[Hopkirk]

Why aren't yall helping to wagon the guy who planted his RVS vote on a player who is replacing out and then disappeared from the thread?

I pretty sure you have to wait 48 hours to prod a missing person.
He only 'disappeared' 8 hours ago.

[Hopkirk]

micc, why do you feel the need to jump out of RVS before half the players have even checked in? And what's your take on the purpose of RVS?

What gave you the impression she was 'jumping out' of RVS? It's a weak reason, so I'd classify that as RVS. Your comment feels overly strong given that.

why aren't you voting, cabd?

A vote is effectively pointing a loaded gun at somebody, in my eyes. Why would I shoot from the hip before I fully read the game?

Do you mean you haven't read the two pages of RVS posts at all, or you want to read them more?

[Hopkirk]

Well, if somehow I do get lynched, look for scum on my wagon. There's only 8 available votes, and there are 5 needed to lynch and I can't see 5 town voting for this RC thing. Or even 4, really...Gotta go...

This strikes me as overly concerned with a few RVS votes.

Ok fair. I'll move my vote when something else pings me.

I do agree that not lynching is the wrong move, because even if we lynch wrong we get the players voice as conf. town during the next day phases. It might be a good strat to sort experienced/high contributing players first, and if there is enough consensus that the player is likely scum, they would be an ideal first lynch.

I disliked the previous post (I think 61) since it seemed like Cheeky was trying to make an attack based on something unimportant, so like that they stepped away afterwards.

Micc, if we are going to get all serious, it seems to me that that slot has as much chance of being scum as any other, so why would it matter that RC was replacing out? Are you trying to discourage votes on that slot?

No, I'm just stating how unproductive it is to be voting an empty slot at that stage of the game.

if you're saying that rvs voting an empty slot doesn't help leave rvs because it doesn't draw reactions the same way that rvsing a player who's in the game does, shouldn't your own reaction to that prove that wrong?

I don't think so. By that logic one could argue that self voting is a productive way to end RVS and I don't agree with that at all.

Well, if somehow I do get lynched, look for scum on my wagon. There's only 8 available votes, and there are 5 needed to lynch and I can't see 5 town voting for this RC thing. Or even 4, really...Gotta go...

So who of Cheekyteeky, Micc, and nothsidegal is most likely to be scum on your wagon?

Given the discussion over Chip's RVS vote has taken us out of initial RVS, it was technically successful.

okay but you still didn't really answer my question which was

did you still believe those two unanswered points were valid when you made 63?

Like i'm asking is it the case that:
a) you didn't believe those points were valid when making 59 and thus also didn't believe them when making 63 even though nobody else discussed them;
b) you did believe them when making 59 but changed your mind before making 63 for some reason; or
c) you did believe them when making 59 and still believed them when making 63 but other things cabd did overrode your otherwise valid reasons to scumread him?

if its c - which i suspect it is - what did cabd do in his responses to make you tr him? was it solely the fact that he didn't rebut your case point by point?

The abc list strikes me as very odd.

[Hopkirk]

VOTE: Hopkirk what do you think about micc? I think Cabd indirectly asked you a question about RVS shortly after your last post too.

Micc seems odd at the end of p3.

Do you think not voting during the RVS phase is scum motivated?

Do you mean that? It doesn't looked specifically aimed at me. I don't see anywhere else he could have asked me something since he didn't answer the question I asked him, which I assume would come before any question to me.

so this is what i mean when i say that pressure on cabd feels artificial. i feel like i have a good enough idea of scumhunting (in general, if not for cheeky's playstyle in particular) to say that the reasoning here feels forced. i'm not sure why a scum cheeky would specifically want a cabd wagon so i don't know if this is necessarily indicitive of scum but i feel like it's still strange enough to warrant pointing out.

whole post for reference:

Spoiler:

Cool, everyone has checked in. I disagree with BTD6 (did you really make that game?), I think Cabd not voting is NAI, based on one game I've played with him. In the game he was town, but we see he is aware that he's played with me from his newbie comment earlier ITT. Cabd, being a meta genius, probably knows to not RVS vote again to have me assume a town read on him. So, the potential self-awareness of his opening move nullifies me reading him as a town lean, based on that one point alone. I feel there are other points that raise my suspicion on Cabd. First off he enters without providing any indication of early reads, when there's only one page to go off, so it wouldn't be hard to skim and then enter announcing any thoughts to help progress the game. Second, his "loaded gun" response to being questionned about not RVS voting, feels dramatic and out of place, like the emphasis is on being reasonable about voting, but we're not out of the RVS woods yet. Third, he comments on his own replacement slot by saying that rc doesn't like town, thats probably why he replaced, but that the point is also null. I'm not sure what the point of this comment is, if not to subtly put in our minds that his slot is town.

Overall I'd say I have an early scum lean on Cabd.
VOTE: Cabd

I think Cabd not voting is NAI, based on one game I've played with him. In the game he was town, but we see he is aware that he's played with me from his newbie comment earlier ITT. Cabd, being a meta genius, probably knows to not RVS vote again to have me assume a town read on him. So, the potential self-awareness of his opening move nullifies me reading him as a town lean, based on that one point alone.

i only know cabd as a mod but it doesn't seem realistic that he specifically thought of his rvs behavior in his last game with cheeky and made the conscious decision to do the same thing to attempt to bait cheeky. maybe cabd really is a meta genius and thought through this all but it just doesn't make sense to me. i know cheeky's conclusion here was that it's null, but why even mention all this? this is what i mean when i say artificial.

First off he enters without providing any indication of early reads, when there's only one page to go off, so it wouldn't be hard to skim and then enter announcing any thoughts to help progress the game. Second, his "loaded gun" response to being questionned about not RVS voting, feels dramatic and out of place, like the emphasis is on being reasonable about voting, but we're not out of the RVS woods yet.

this is kind of a reasonable point but it still seems odd to be specifically directed towards cabd. there are other people at this point who have contributed less. as for the second point i'd repeat what a lot of people have already said that being more careful with your vote isn't necessarily scummy.

Third, he comments on his own replacement slot by saying that rc doesn't like town, thats probably why he replaced, but that the point is also null. I'm not sure what the point of this comment is, if not to subtly put in our minds that his slot is town.

you misread what he was saying. he didn't say that rc probably replaced because he doesn't like town, he said that in normal circumstances it would indicate that the slot is scum but due to rc leaving all of the games ( ) it doesn't mean anything.

also i guess you could say that what ss was saying about the pressure disappearing quickly is artificial, but i'm not really making that point and i'm not really sure about it.

This is an overly strong defense of Cabd given the lack of real pressure that I can see.
VOTE: North

Also, re "meta master" my title is a thing because at one point i kept a literal binder full of meta tells for every user, and read every single game that took place in a two year period to tally it.

I'm married and have a job now, so lolnope.jpg anymore.

Every game on site... How long did that take?

[Hopkirk]

Looks like I was RVS voting him already anyway.

uhh neutral I guess. If I felt like I already had a read off of it I wouldn't be digging into it by asking questions

That's very "Switzerland" of you lol. I think your logic is bad though. You can have expectations prior to receiving a response, and get a better read by digging asking questions. I assume that you already have a read on me then, since you're not digging and asking me questions?

I really want Hop to answer my question before I move my vote but FoS: Micc.

Why would you expect me to not answer if you removed the vote, and why are you treating the question of 'what do you think of x player (that you don't explicitly scumread)' as so significant?

UNVOTE: Hopkirk

VOTE: north

I'm afraid the random vote - reaction test - serious vote just seems scrambling almost

I think you may have unvoted scum, to vote scum.

Given you've asked me for my thoughts on Micc when I hadn't mentioned him yet, (and given, though slightly less so, that you haven't really mentioned me outside there) I find it surprising you didn't mention why you're scumleaning on me. I'd like to hear your thoughts there.

[Hopkirk]

This is an overly strong defense of Cabd given the lack of real pressure that I can see.

like i said in some other post, it wasn't really meant to be a defense of cabd so much as pointing out strange behavior. i don't know if it's just me, but it seems like people are acting very odd this game and i'm having a hard time interpreting it.

It doesn't read like that since you don't really mention who you're talking about, so it's going to get lost rather than developed if bringing them to light is your intent.
Also people don't seem 'very odd' moreso than usual at this stage to me.

[Hopkirk]

This is an overly strong defense of Cabd given the lack of real pressure that I can see.

like i said in some other post, it wasn't really meant to be a defense of cabd so much as pointing out strange behavior. i don't know if it's just me, but it seems like people are acting very odd this game and i'm having a hard time interpreting it.

It doesn't read like that since you don't really mention who you're talking about, so it's going to get lost rather than developed if bringing them to light is your intent.
Also people don't seem 'very odd' moreso than usual at this stage to me.

i tried to make it clear that the whole post was in response to cheeky's one post. that's why i put the "whole post for reference" in a spoiler. if other people don't see it (the strange behavior) then it's possible it's just me.

I'm not happy with this response. I was talking primarily about Cabd, and you don't really mention him, then later say i'm probably misunderstanding. I don't know how you'd clear up the misunderstanding without adressing the core bit.

That might affect possible breaking strategies

All that stands out to me with the self-protect is you can have an IC that makes it to "lylo" at the cost of never getting off a protect... which in the setup protects are unlikely to occur anyways.

I'm not sure a claim and self-proc is optimal. That just means mafia can ignite for a while, then kill all in one go when they know it'll give them a majority. The protect stops them being able to guarantee an auto-win at the end.

Why would you expect me to not answer if you removed the vote, and why are you treating the question of 'what do you think of x player (that you don't explicitly scumread)' as so significant?

Some players need a push to answer I've found. Also a vote can make a question feel more loaded to scum. I wanted to test a Hopkirk/micc possibility with the question. I don't know what to do with your response just yet. You were an initial scum lean.

Personally I never avoid any questions unless I miss them, and am of the opinion that avoiding questions is highly anti-town. I think I said in my last game something like 'I'd vote sem-confirmed town in lylo if they don't answer ******* questions.'

Given you've asked me for my thoughts on Micc when I hadn't mentioned him yet, (and given, though slightly less so, that you haven't really mentioned me outside there) I find it surprising you didn't mention why you're scumleaning on me. I'd like to hear your thoughts there.

Readlist incoming.

I asked for one read explination that you should have had already. This is a clear dodge.

[Hopkirk]

Forgot to say above: Been a bit busy, reading through now. I saw Cabd claim, but otherwise will be giving thoughts as I run through. I thought Cabd was playing odd, but that’s explained now.

resignation to being lynched is more townie amongst newbies than not imo. especially trying to give advice for where to look for scum post-flip since scum doesn't really care what town does after they're lynched - they just want to stay alive - while town does.

for example in my last game we wagoned scum early d1 and they responded by being much colder than they were early game

Spoiler: quotes

You have misrepresented my conclusion and are continuing discussion of game mechanics after others have stated that's a bad idea. I find both of those approaches questionable at best.

You went from discussing mechanics yourself to saying that approach is questionable pretty quickly. What specifically changed your mind?

Sobolev and kittycap's exchange on page 2.

I gave a logical progression from point to point to conclusion, but you stripped out the qualifier in your recap. When I called you on the change you said you hadn't added anything to my conclusion, but in point of fact you subtracted from it. Why?

That is what I did here, but Green skipped my qualifiers and presented it as me making a black and white statement. I appear to being getting heat for what he said rather than what I actually wrote, which is super confusing to me.

meanwhile the newbie townie that we wagoned d1 seemed like they kinda gave up and resigned themselves to being lynched eventually and expressed similar frustration to chip as to the case on them:

Spoiler: quotes

If you guys are set on lynching me that's fine. if there's any questions anybody wants to ask before I'm hammered, feel free.

I was surprised to see him at the top of her town reads.

why not ask her about it? Does this affect your read on Sobolev? You said she was a top town read, why haven't you tried to reach out and get her to townread you?

It kind of affected my read, but overall I've seen her as town this whole game. I don't know exactly what you mean by reach out to her to change her mind. All I've done this game is post my honest thoughts and don't really see why my posts are "bad in iso." It seems the tone of the game has drastically changed on the last page which has been pretty confusing for me.

i didn't realize chip was as experienced as he was however, so the i'm not tring these as much as before

how much consideration have you accounted for regarding the time left in the Day? Looks to me like BlueBlake was at L-1 with 12 hours left in the Day and Sunlit Diamond went to L-2 on page 4. One player was basically 99% to be lynched that Day and the other maybe 25%. Transitioning back to this game I think its silly for anyone think that Chip was in danger of being lynched on page 4...and with that in mind its more likely that he was trying to dissolve his wagon instead of give sound advice to the town.

I agree with this (RVS is pretty null in general, and Chip wouldn't expect a lynch to be all that likely), plus one game really isn't enough to base it on.

Okay one last comment before i go. I don't think the wagon on NSG is sound. Don't know if it is scummy or not. More later.

Expanding on this was the most interesting thing in Chip's string of posts, so idk why it wasn't expanded on. Maybe sounds like he wants the lynch but doesn't want to be on it.
(please explain if not explained in the next pages)

[Hopkirk]

V/LA until the 16th of October

I will still try to post, though.

Anyway, is there anything in particular that anyone would like to draw my attention to?

In one game, my point about Cabd's making a point of not voting may hold. Of course, if they are known to do this in every game, it can be regarded as completely NAI. I will, however, analyse Cabd some more.

When you come back I'd like to hear what you'd read at this point.

I mean yeah NSG's approach to this game has been very weird; but can somebody explain why it's SCUM-weird?

yeah that's where I got hung up as well.

how do you feel about what I said in post 229? ive got a lynch pool of kawso, BTD6_maker and hopkirk and then chip butty and northsidegal are on the second tier.

What are you thoughts on Cheeky?

[Hopkirk]

I can't figure out why Hopkirk used 236 in his line of questionning of micc. O_o

Because he didn't put you in the suspicious section, and I find you suspicious, so want to know why.

in case it wasn't clear, i don't cc.

I'm not happy with this response. I was talking primarily about Cabd, and you don't really mention him, then later say i'm probably misunderstanding. I don't know how you'd clear up the misunderstanding without adressing the core bit.

i'm having a hard time understanding what your point is supposed to be. my original post wasn't really about cabd, it was meant to focus more on cheeky. you say that i didn't mention who i was talking about, but the whole post was in response to cheeky.

I liked this, because it shows [NSG] is reading carefully, and i think scum would have let Micc's misreading slide through.

I don't agree with this. Scum are more likely to pick up on anything to build a case/cast shade with. I noticed micc's overstatement but gave that room to see where it would go. I thought NSG jumping in prematurely cut off the push as micc complained about earlier. The interaction feels like SvT, I'm just not 100% on which one is S yet although I'm leaning towards NSG.

i see your point now about cutting off a potential push, but at the time i was just trying to provide some clarification. do you think that interaction has anything to do with building a case or casting shade?

idk if i agree with this although i do want nsg to add more actual contet. like when scum is being hesitant its usually to make it look like they're scumhunting etc. without having to take strong stances ppl can tie them to but if we look at nsg's recent post:

i'll be honest and say that i don't really have any strong scumreads as of yet. it could be failure on my part to distinguish town from scum, it could be that scum are blending in well this game or it could be that scum are lurking through. of the three i think the last is most likely.

UNVOTE:

If it was intended to focus on Cheeky then I'd expect to see something at the end mentioning Cheeky, instead of a brief comment at the start. The focus of what you said was defending Cabd, whether that was your intent or not.

even if you don't have any strong scumreads do you have any townreads nsg?

oh yeah, that would be useful! obviously cabd, you and chip. as for things people could expand on, cheeky never responded to 144. it seems like cabd was cooking up some kind of breaking strategy so that would be interesting to hear, unless it's the kind of thing best left unsaid. it feels like hopkirk hasn't really done much except respond to things people have said to him or give small comments on things, so it would be nice to see something new from him, some kind of casebuilding perhaps.

I have time to do an ISO now.
I townread the same people.

[Hopkirk]

I'm trying to discourage votes that don't help us get out of RSV. RVS voting an empty slot is explicitly not helping the game leave RVS and I'd like to wagon you for doing it.

if you're saying that rvs voting an empty slot doesn't help leave rvs because it doesn't draw reactions the same way that rvsing a player who's in the game does, shouldn't your own reaction to that prove that wrong?

I liked this now since I missed it, and said/thought the same thing later in reaction to Micc.

i think if you want to get out of rvs so bad, this is the way to do it!

UNVOTE:
VOTE: chip l-2

This kind of conflicts with the previous post, given you imply it's not enough for

you ]/i] to go off of there.

Its purpose is to end as quickly as possible. Building cases seems like a much better way to find scum than cracking witty jokes.

its purpose is to end as quickly as possible but for it to end people have to have something to go off of! if someone voting an empty slot is enough for you to go off of to make the first serious vote then that's fine, but for most people i'd imagine they're still waiting for everyone's entrance. jumping straight out of rvs isn't always valuable - scum sometimes find it hard to naturally insert themselves into the thread, whereas if we get out of rvs too soon they can just lurk a bit before sheeping someone or going straight to reads.

Oh are we done. Okay. Let's talk about how micc just skipped over my entrence entirely?

You haven't really done anything interesting at this point so that's where I'm at.

So who of Cheekyteeky, Micc, and nothsidegal is most likely to be scum on your wagon?

although that's a valid question on its own i think he was talking more generally about the idea that he'd be lynched just for the placement of his rvs vote and how scum would have to be on that wagon if it went trhough. i don't think specifically he was calling any of those three scum.

I guess we will just have to wait and see what Chip says Chip meant instead of what northsidegal thinks Chip meant.

rude!! we're still sort of in rvs so i don't feel bad about this!
VOTE: micc

This is your first posts after the one i brought up earlier. Firstly, it doesn't fit with you saying the purpose of RVS is to get out of RVS, and it sounds like you're going for more RVS rather than going with what their was.

More importantly, I don't get why you didn't vote Cheeky, given your suspicion of their interaction with Cabd.

[Hopkirk]

i know cheeky's conclusion here was that it's null, but why even mention all this? this is what i mean when i say artificial.

I started off with the premise that Cabd not RVSing is NAI futher to BTD's town read of this point, that's why I felt the need to elaborate on a null point. I prefaced the whole post with "I disagree with BTD blah blah blah" and outlined my points on cabd in contrast to BTD. I think you're fishing for something that isn't there with my push on Cabd and that you're intentionally ignoring my strat spec post, where I indirectly point out why my first push is Cabd.

What is it that you think you know about my town playstyle in RVS, that you're not seeing here? I'd also like to make the point that I don't have enough meta for there to be consistency in my play yet, but that's my subjective opinion. I don't like that you've spent the time to make me your biggest announced scum lean, yet you don't vote me. Instead you place another RVS vote on someone...why?

which one is your strat spec post?

on the second point, two things. first, it was just that everything about the post i was quoting felt forced. it didn't feel like natural reasoning, it felt like you were inventing reasons to suspect cabd. next, you're not my biggest announced scum lean. like i said, i don't see any sort of anti-town motivation for what you did, it's just that the reasoning seems off. one could make the argument that scum would want to manufacture a wagon on someone they know to be town, but i think standard practice there would just be to further someone else's wagon with the knowledge that that person is town, so that point doesn't hold up.

The 'you're not my biggest scumread' doesn't match up with the explination that it was a post about him, not Cabd. I wouldn't find this very significant is you hadn't said you were voting Micc as RVS, and I can't see why you'd do that.

Secondly, you explicitly imply you have scumreads with the phrase that cheeky isn't your biggest scumlean.
If Micc/Cheeky are not these scumreads then it's very unclear who is, I don't know why you'd hide it based on your desire to move things on, and your vote makes no sense.
This is the most significant point on a reread.

pagetop!

micc, it was a mostly random vote but now it's a serious one. what do you think about that?

The only thing that's changed is Micc being a little more suspicious of you. Later explination seems fine though, so this isn't scummy.

This is an overly strong defense of Cabd given the lack of real pressure that I can see.

like i said in some other post, it wasn't really meant to be a defense of cabd so much as pointing out strange behavior. i don't know if it's just me, but it seems like people are acting very odd this game and i'm having a hard time interpreting it.

It doesn't read like that since you don't really mention who you're talking about, so it's going to get lost rather than developed if bringing them to light is your intent.
Also people don't seem 'very odd' moreso than usual at this stage to me.

i tried to make it clear that the whole post was in response to cheeky's one post. that's why i put the "whole post for reference" in a spoiler. if other people don't see it (the strange behavior) then it's possible it's just me.

The strange behaviour was previously described as game wide, not just one person.

[Hopkirk]

Conclusion: Buddying up to a lot of people, not really attacking/pressuring anyone. Some conflicts in terms of says/wants/does. Biggest points of consideration are the confusing voting on Micc, the unresolved issues i have with the cheeky/Cabd thing, and the other scumreads.
Read progression on Micc could would be townish if the first thing was resolved.

[Hopkirk]

If it was intended to focus on Cheeky then I'd expect to see something at the end mentioning Cheeky, instead of a brief comment at the start. The focus of what you said was defending Cabd, whether that was your intent or not.

a brief comment? listen - the entire post was responding to cheeky! it was a direct response to one of her posts! i'm not sure what you want me to say. every single quote there was from the one post that cheeky made.

The 'you're not my biggest scumread' doesn't match up with the explination that it was a post about him, not Cabd. I wouldn't find this very significant is you hadn't said you were voting Micc as RVS, and I can't see why you'd do that.

Secondly, you explicitly imply you have scumreads with the phrase that cheeky isn't your biggest scumlean.
If Micc/Cheeky are not these scumreads then it's very unclear who is, I don't know why you'd hide it based on your desire to move things on, and your vote makes no sense.
This is the most significant point on a reread.

cheeky was the one to use the phrase "biggest announced scumlean", i was just echoing what she had said. any implications there came from her, not from me. furthermore, as i've said multiple times before, i was saying that i thought cheeky's behavior was strange, not that it was scummy. if this is the most significant point you have to make then the case on me as a whole looks pretty weak.

Part 1

1.) It wasn't the kind of response I'd expect to see town make on someone they were neutral on.
2.) You mention Cheeky once in it, and Cabd multiple times. You were commenting on Cabd significantly, intentionally or not. Don't blame the reader on this.
3.) There weren't any conclusions, so at best it just reads as commenting rather than scumhunting. If you didn't vote Cheeky, or mention any conclusions on Cheeky, then it's just busywork that looks good as a substitution for scumhunting. That's a commonish alternative to scumhunting from scum.

Part 2

4.) Doesn't adress why Cheeky wasn't a scumlean, and especially why he wasn't worth a vote given you claimed your next vote why RVS.
5.) You didn't mention your Micc vote at all in this response. I said that was the most significant point.
6.) It reflects badly on you in my eyes that you say my case is weak because my 'most significant point' is bad when you didn't address what I said was my most significant point (see 5).

[Hopkirk]

Because he didn't put you in the suspicious section, and I find you suspicious, so want to know why.

But what does this have to do with the post you referenced? What am I missing here? In the post you referenced micc concedes that NSG might be town. He hasn't provided any lists? I find it suspicious that you chose this quote when a couple of quotes later he says he is still suspicious of NSG. It seems like you're choosing a quote that puts micc's suspicion of NSG in a better light and which has nothing to do with me...so you quote that then ask how micc feels about me.

Why are you suspicious of me? Don't make the weak mistake of saying I'm suspicious with nothing to back it up, while providing a null leaning case of NSG...

Because his reads list was in that post. I was asking purely because you were not on the reads list in that post.
I'm suspicious of you based on what I've mentioned already- your reads progression is confusing, and the odd lack of jutifying your read on my by saying you'd do a reads list instead, when that wasn't what had been requested.
Why is my case null leaning? If you think I'm town (based on last reads list), then why not try and persuade me I'm wrong to prevent a TvT?

[Hopkirk]

Micc's work rate has definitely dropped off after an initial burst of activity. Possibly cruising after having established some town cred.

Hopkirk on the other hand has picked up activity after initially being quiet, but while he raises a lot of points my overall impression is that they lack penetration.

I kind of like CT's recent observation that NSG's comments are not of the sharp scum hunting variety but i also sympathise with NSG because nobody is yet standing out as especially scummy.

I think kawso either has to join the game or be replaced. Don't really want to vote that slot until we get something from it.

First time mentioning my case without referencing anything said in it.

It's pretty much just what I've already mentioned. An overall impression that his observations aren't all that penetrating, but it's only a lean because it's not as if anyone else is doing much better. I get the impression everybody is just spinning their wheels a bit at the moment.

I kinda do disagree about Kawso though. It might be that scum is being hard to find because it isn't playing the game.

Second time mentioning he thinks my case is bad without referencing any of the case itself.

I've already said i don't have anything special in the reads department yet, and neither does anyone else including you and Hopkirk. If you differ in your assessment of the value of his insights, that's fine, but I'm not seeing it. Perhaps point us to some especially acute Hopkirk observations?

Also, there's another reason you've slipped down a bit in my reads list, but I'm not ready to reveal it just yet. Maybe if you ISO yourself you might see it...

Third time mentioning he thinks my case is bad without referencing any of the case itself.

Well Hopkirk doesn't have some guy banging on about minutae like accidentally voting for a guy replacing out, whereas i seem to spend most of the time i have available for this game dealing with that. Don't you get the irony of it? But please continue. I want you to dig up every tiny nitpicking point you can and bring it so that i have to spend time responding. And then i want you to complain that I'm not doing any investigating. I mean, nothing else much is happening in thecthread, so we might as well do this until the BTD6 and Kawso slots get into the game.

Putting aside Micc's response, how does someone scumreading you in game (who I assume you think is scum based on what you've said) stop you from doing anything else? Unless your internet provider charges you by the word...

[Hopkirk]

I wasn't badgering you during the period of the game where my work rate decreased was I

And is this an admission that you have been badgering me the rest of the time? Interesting that you introduce the term badgering which i didn't.

'Were you murdering the victim during the period of the 12th to the 14th?'
'I was not murdering the victim during the period of the 12th to the 14th.'
'Ah, so is that an admission that you were murdering the victim at another time?'

No town motivation behind 56???

I was saying if i got lynched there was a high likelihood of both scum being on my wagon, effectively narrowing the field to 5. How is that not town motivated? I've already pointed this out.

Btw, for the record, which of 1-5 do you currently stand by? And, again, is there anything else you want to bring?

Something we certainly wouldn't have thought of ourselves. Especially not Micc the super super experienced setup designer who can design setups but not think of things like 'if a town is quicklynched there's a good shot scum were voting them'.

Sobolev is scum leaning Hopkirk too, yet you have no problem with that?

Nope.

@Micc: Given your keen interest in Hopkirk assessments and progressions, how did you fail to notice this?

I missed it because I don't have a keen interest in Hopkirk assessments

A simple 'nope' isn't going to cut it. You owe us a reason why you have a problem with me scum leaning Hopkirk but not Sobolev scum leaning Hopkirk.

Yes you do have a keen interest in Hopkirk assessments. You have assessed him yourself and attacked me because my assessment differs from yours.

Progressions: you attack me because i lowered you a notch and you don't like the reasons stated so far. So you are noticing progressions, but only selectively, it appears.

I still don't see why anything you've said on me makes me scum leaning rather than null in your perspective.
Still waiting on the case that I'm sure will resolve this.

@Micc: I just want to clear up something before we continue. How many games of Mafia would you say you had played when you designed this setup? Ballpark will do...

Micc said in thread he only had two scumgames.

[Hopkirk]

I also townlean on Sobolev and scumlean on you btw Chip.

[Hopkirk]

i'm not responding to part one. i've already said everything there is to be said regarding that. if you read it one way that's fine, my intent was something else. what's your point?

Part 2

4.) Doesn't adress why Cheeky wasn't a scumlean, and especially why he wasn't worth a vote given you claimed your next vote why RVS.

furthermore, as i've said multiple times before, i was saying that i thought cheeky's behavior was strange, not that it was scummy.

5.) You didn't mention your Micc vote at all in this response. I said that was the most significant point.
6.) It reflects badly on you in my eyes that you say my case is weak because my 'most significant point' is bad when you didn't address what I said was my most significant point (see 5).

i'm sorry, given the run on sentence right before "this is the most significant point" it was a little difficult to determine what you were referring to. what exactly is your question regarding the micc vote?

Primarily why it was made, in light of the other stuff you were saying.

[Hopkirk]

Because he didn't put you in the suspicious section, and I find you suspicious, so want to know why.

But what does this have to do with the post you referenced? What am I missing here? In the post you referenced micc concedes that NSG might be town. He hasn't provided any lists? I find it suspicious that you chose this quote when a couple of quotes later he says he is still suspicious of NSG. It seems like you're choosing a quote that puts micc's suspicion of NSG in a better light and which has nothing to do with me...so you quote that then ask how micc feels about me.

Why are you suspicious of me? Don't make the weak mistake of saying I'm suspicious with nothing to back it up, while providing a null leaning case of NSG...

Because his reads list was in that post. I was asking purely because you were not on the reads list in that post.
I'm suspicious of you based on what I've mentioned already- your reads progression is confusing, and the odd lack of jutifying your read on my by saying you'd do a reads list instead, when that wasn't what had been requested.
Why is my case null leaning? If you think I'm town (based on last reads list), then why not try and persuade me I'm wrong to prevent a TvT?

Oh I see what you mean now.

If you're confused about my reads progression that's your own problem, you should be asking me questions if it's killing you to know. I've already suggested my play is not linear. Anyway confusion on my points is NAI. I've answered your question about my read progression of you and why I didn't do it immediately when requested, so you can drop that line of enquiry or start a new line.

Your case on NSG was waffling on but never came to a conclusion. You need to tell her why you're leaning one way or the other on her and put your vote where your mouth is. The point is that you had time to "analyse" her actions in depth without an indication of your read, but then you just throw out your suspicious read on me without justification. Why?

On you
We’ve already discussed these points, so why are you acting like I’m just bringing it up now? It’s also not from nowhere- because we’ve discussed it. You’re less suspicious than NSG, but you’re still a scumlean.

On NSG- what?
1.) You say ‘never came to a conclusion’- I literally wrote a section titled conclusions.
2.) On you need to ‘tell her why you’re leaning one way or another’- what do you think I was saying throughout.
3.) On ‘put your vote where your mouth is’- It was on her before I made the case, while I made it, and Hasn’t left her.
4.) How am I not reaching conclusions on her? Could you seriously not see I scumread her?

I really don’t see how you can reach the conclusions you did from my posts. Could you reread my NSG case before responding to the above.

[Hopkirk]

Because he didn't put you in the suspicious section, and I find you suspicious, so want to know why.

But what does this have to do with the post you referenced? What am I missing here? In the post you referenced micc concedes that NSG might be town. He hasn't provided any lists? I find it suspicious that you chose this quote when a couple of quotes later he says he is still suspicious of NSG. It seems like you're choosing a quote that puts micc's suspicion of NSG in a better light and which has nothing to do with me...so you quote that then ask how micc feels about me.

Why are you suspicious of me? Don't make the weak mistake of saying I'm suspicious with nothing to back it up, while providing a null leaning case of NSG...

Because his reads list was in that post. I was asking purely because you were not on the reads list in that post.
I'm suspicious of you based on what I've mentioned already- your reads progression is confusing, and the odd lack of jutifying your read on my by saying you'd do a reads list instead, when that wasn't what had been requested.
Why is my case null leaning? If you think I'm town (based on last reads list), then why not try and persuade me I'm wrong to prevent a TvT?

Oh I see what you mean now.

If you're confused about my reads progression that's your own problem, you should be asking me questions if it's killing you to know. I've already suggested my play is not linear. Anyway confusion on my points is NAI. I've answered your question about my read progression of you and why I didn't do it immediately when requested, so you can drop that line of enquiry or start a new line.

Your case on NSG was waffling on but never came to a conclusion. You need to tell her why you're leaning one way or the other on her and put your vote where your mouth is. The point is that you had time to "analyse" her actions in depth without an indication of your read, but then you just throw out your suspicious read on me without justification. Why?

On you
We’ve already discussed these points, so why are you acting like I’m just bringing it up now? It’s also not from nowhere- because we’ve discussed it. You’re less suspicious than NSG, but you’re still a scumlean.

On NSG- what?
1.) You say ‘never came to a conclusion’- I literally wrote a section titled conclusions.
2.) On you need to ‘tell her why you’re leaning one way or another’- what do you think I was saying throughout.
3.) On ‘put your vote where your mouth is’- It was on her before I made the case, while I made it, and Hasn’t left her.
4.) How am I not reaching conclusions on her? Could you seriously not see I scumread her?

I really don’t see how you can reach the conclusions you did from my posts. Could you reread my NSG case before responding to the above.

You're missing the point. This is clearly a dodge lol.

VOTE: Cheeky

If you don't respond to my questions then my vote isn't moving.
You said demonstrably untrue things- such as explicitly saying I wasn't voting someone I was- and are still sticking to them.

[Hopkirk]

VC 1.3

There was no queue, but no food either.

Leading Wagon:

northsidegal (3) - Hopkirk

, Kawso, CheekyTeeky

Kawso (1) - Sobolev Space
Chip Butty (1) - Micc

Not Voting: Cabd, BTD6_maker, Chip Butty, northsidegal

With 9 alive it will require 5 votes to achieve a lynch.

Day 1 will end in (expired on 2017-10-22 19:07:10)

Mod notes:
BTD6_maker is V/LA until October 16.
Kawso has failed to pick up their prod after 24 hours (

Weekends are half time per rules.

)
I will be finding a replacement for Kawso.

[Hopkirk]

Why the fuck am i the only person voting Cheeky when she's explicitly refused to engage with evidence that undeniably contradicts what's she's saying.

[Hopkirk]

Because he didn't put you in the suspicious section, and I find you suspicious, so want to know why.

But what does this have to do with the post you referenced? What am I missing here? In the post you referenced micc concedes that NSG might be town. He hasn't provided any lists? I find it suspicious that you chose this quote when a couple of quotes later he says he is still suspicious of NSG. It seems like you're choosing a quote that puts micc's suspicion of NSG in a better light and which has nothing to do with me...so you quote that then ask how micc feels about me.

Why are you suspicious of me? Don't make the weak mistake of saying I'm suspicious with nothing to back it up, while providing a null leaning case of NSG...

Because his reads list was in that post. I was asking purely because you were not on the reads list in that post.
I'm suspicious of you based on what I've mentioned already- your reads progression is confusing, and the odd lack of jutifying your read on my by saying you'd do a reads list instead, when that wasn't what had been requested.
Why is my case null leaning? If you think I'm town (based on last reads list), then why not try and persuade me I'm wrong to prevent a TvT?

Oh I see what you mean now.

If you're confused about my reads progression that's your own problem, you should be asking me questions if it's killing you to know. I've already suggested my play is not linear. Anyway confusion on my points is NAI. I've answered your question about my read progression of you and why I didn't do it immediately when requested, so you can drop that line of enquiry or start a new line.

Your case on NSG was waffling on but never came to a conclusion. You need to tell her why you're leaning one way or the other on her and put your vote where your mouth is. The point is that you had time to "analyse" her actions in depth without an indication of your read, but then you just throw out your suspicious read on me without justification. Why?

Why the fuck am i the only person voting Cheeky when she's explicitly refused to engage with evidence that undeniably contradicts what's she's saying.

Why are you ignoring the point that you went out of your way to cast shade on NSG but then put in zero effort on your scum read on me? Were you hoping to get away unquestioned with your scum read? You're still trying to use your case on NSG to drown my point in. I don't like inconsistency or you dodging the point when you've accused me of dodging yours.

Post 334 is the response I gave to why I found you suspicious. You said you understood, so I assumed you understood. Your reads progression, especially on me, seemed odd (especially reactive), so I had a slight scumlean on you. I had asked you, and didn't really buy the answers. I'd have thought you'd have already known I found you suspicious given we'd engaged earlier when I asked you about a read that didn't make sense, but in 334 I explained the slight scumlean again.

Notice I only use the word suspicious. It was pretty clearly a slight scumlean, and that changed to a significant scumread when you dodged further engagement.

Refusal to engage further from you also heavily implies you don't have further questions- given in a previous discussion during the game I said the thing I hate most is people who won't answer questions- so all you would have had to do is bring them up again.

'Were you hoping to get away unquestioned with your scum read?'
I also don't understand what you mean by get away with it here. What advantage does me saying I've got a slight scumlean on you give me? In what scenario (other than it being a slight suspicion) does that help me more in any way than doing an in depth iso (which I didn't see the need to do since it was a lean).

[Hopkirk]

Didn't notice Cheeky had subbed out, so I guess I won't be getting any explinations.
Cheeky's responses to Micc's point are also terrible, refusing to elaborate in response to him questioning her on the same points too.

[Hopkirk]

Not much point leaving my vote where it is when it’s waiting for a replacement.
VOTE: BTD6

383 – Gives light scumread on Cheeky, doesn’t follow it with a vote, and promises more content later.
421 - Two days later. No further catch up. Follows up slightly on Cheeky but no vote. Complains about activity (kind of ironically).

Don’t really like the entrance. Both those posts look longish, but have no significant content in them. I could very easily see the Cheeky vote as a bus.

[Hopkirk]

Cheeky read, not Cheeky vote.

[Hopkirk]

Not much point leaving my vote where it is when it’s waiting for a replacement.
VOTE: BTD6

383 – Gives light scumread on Cheeky, doesn’t follow it with a vote, and promises more content later.
421 - Two days later. No further catch up. Follows up slightly on Cheeky but no vote. Complains about activity (kind of ironically).

Don’t really like the entrance. Both those posts look longish, but have no significant content in them. I could very easily see the Cheeky vote as a bus.

Why do you think my entrance is more likely to come from scum than Town?

Also, what makes my scumread on Cheeky more likely to be a bus than any other scumread?

Because scum benefits more from a no lynch/low activity. Also because hedging is opportunistic, but that's been covered.
I don't understand your second question. I scumread Cheeky (at this point, haven't caught up with their posts since they decided not to sub out), so that would make it a bus if you're scum. It looks like a bus because it's hedging significantly.

Not much point leaving my vote where it is when it’s waiting for a replacement.
VOTE: BTD6

383 – Gives light scumread on Cheeky, doesn’t follow it with a vote, and promises more content later.
421 - Two days later. No further catch up. Follows up slightly on Cheeky but no vote. Complains about activity (kind of ironically).

Don’t really like the entrance. Both those posts look longish, but have no significant content in them. I could very easily see the Cheeky vote as a bus.

I would say that this is slightly scummy. It looks a bit like contradiction hunting, which I mentioned before. If someone's case has contradictions, it is more likely that they are simply confused than actively deceiving, but if scum can expose contradictions their case may look solid, as if they have discovered something that reveals the holes in a player's case. Of course, this is very weak. Town can easily do this as well and genuinely think that they have exposed scum. Hopkirk probably isn't intending on actual contradiction hunting. It's a possibility, though, and if Hopkirk is scum they can do this to try to "expose" me.

Like I said, I do not know if this is actually the case. It's just a possibility. This makes Hopkirk slightly more likely to be scum, but not much, which is why I would say that I have a very weak scumread on Hopkirk.

I am analysing these posts (that are voting me) a lot because I find it easier to read people from their interactions and reads on me, and in particular their reasons.

1.) I don't see how I'm contradiction hunting there. The way you describe it sounds like it's an unnecessary focus on trivial things. My comments are based on parts of your play that don't make sense (implicitly inviting an explination of them), or that seem scum motivated. The main difference is a focus on words vs a focus on motivation, and the fact that I'm not looking at any contradictions in words.
2.) If you think i'm 'contradiction hunting' in the way you described then it makes more sense for you to try and clarify what my thought processes are first, to try and work out if it's scum going hard on nothing, or town who've gotten fixated on something minor. I don't see why you'd attack it for being contradiction hunting before actually trying to question the intent, unless you're usually 'contradiction hunting' as an attack/defence/discredit instead of trying to make a better read.
3.) Given my points were in response to an entrance post, you seem to have read them as though I'm laying out a significantly strongest scumread on you than I am. Especially since I implied Cheeky was still a bigger scumread, and I'm still suspicious of North. It seems odd you'd go with the response you did, rather than explaining your thoughts (as your first reaction).

I moved my vote because your wagon is the biggest wagon of players who I have in my lynch pool and this game desperately needs a meaningful wagon.

Can you explain how Hopkirk's post is contradiction hunting? He didn't use the word contradiction or even compare anything as far as I can tell.

There were two main things I saw as possibly being contradiction hunting. (Of course, the word "contradiction" does not need to be used). Both were very weak, as is normally the nature with this.

The first was essentially that Hopkirk made the point that I expressed a scumread for CheekyTeeky but did not vote. It's not inherently a contradiction (I would rather wait until I had more solid reads before voting) but it did seem as though Hopkirk is trying to make it look like one. Of course, this is weak.

The other was that Hopkirk made the point that I was complaining about inactivity. My post did complain about the inactivity in Open 642, but with regard to this game it was more about the number of replacements.

These are only possibilities, and rather unlikely ones at that. That is why I regard them as being so weak.

@Micc: Do you have any opinion on 424 then? I was wondering whether that contributed to your scumread.

1.) I agree it's pretty weak, but it seemed pretty odd. Generally, I'd expect someone with a scumread to vote that person (unless there were lots of votes on them already, which doesn't apply here).
2.) The point about you complaining about inactivity wasn't an attack, it was something that made me laugh when I read it since it was ironic/funny. The points made after the numbers were a summary of your posts content- not specifically just the bad things.

You're acting far too much like my suspicion was major, as opposed to a lean based on an off opening- which i find more suspicious than the opening itself since that's an odd/self-focused reaction.

[Hopkirk]

OK so Hopkirk, I rushed my NSG vs Cheeky scum read analysis which I put together to push you on why you were pretty descriptive of her read but kinda fishing for read on me by just throwing out the word suspicious without much to back it up. In rushing through your NSG case I made some obvious errors whic I was happy to play with to see your reaction and others. Now I see that your initial suspicion on me is for "read progression" do you mean of yourself? If you do I think that has been addressed. If you'd like to discuss this further I'd be happy to.

The reaction I got from Hopkirk was pretty convincing frustrated town. He didn't hesitate to vote me and push my wagon. Micc intervening gives him ++town points also (although I'm aware of the benefits of defending others as scum so we'll see how this town lean goes).

The truly useful reaction I got was from NSG which pretty much solidifies my scum read on her. The timing of her push on me is very likely to come from scum. After I presented my points on her she didn't respond until Hopkirk voted me and pushed for my wagon. I believe it is typical of scum to feel safer going for a push under the cover of someone else leading in order to diffuse suspicion after my flip. E.g. Hopkirk should be more suspicious as he started the wagon... I've recently encountered this same "get em while they're down" tactic from scum on me. Waiting for a spot to vote me shows scum self-consciousness which is not common coming from town.

And then we have this:

okay, here's about the gist of it:
cheeky is lying and coming up with false / disingenuous reasons to further suspicion on me. i think it's likely she's doing this to deflect attention away from herself and to achieve a mislynch. the reasons she cites as to my scumminess are forced and don't make sense upon deeper inspection.

Where am I lying in my case on you NSG? To date, essentially, all you've done is call me scum for scum hunting. When you got a spot to vote me you call me a liar knowing that those reading my Hopkirk case will assume it's true. Call it forced or disingenuous but I have made no errors in my responses to you.

So far I only have NSG in my lynch pool. I need to relook at Chip, SS and BTD.

I don't find this assessment to be accurate.
1.) You say you made some pretty obvious errors to see how people would react. If i'm interpreting it right (that you're talking about where you refused to comment further when I demonstarted you were saying factually untrue things like my vote wasn't on North when it was), then you're saying you were acting scummy to see how people would respond- which is both unprovable, and a classic/bad defence.
2.) My read on you is not based on 'reads progression'. That was why I initially had you as slightly scum leaning. My read became significant enough to justify a vote because of your dodging/refusal to engage.
3.) The reads progression isn't really something that can be solved through discussion. You retracted something that I thought was scummy after I'd commented on it. It wasn't majorly scummy since you changed track, but it was a light scumread since I wasn't sure if you only retracted it to avoid scrutiny.

I'm still suspicious of North for the reasons I discussed during my casing earlier. I'm fairly sure you aren't both scum, since North's vote on you didn't really look like a bus (since I didn't give any indication my read had changed on him, so it would be far more advantageous for him to try and discredit me than to bus a partner and than to go along with me and lose a partner without reason to thing I'd think he was town afterwards). It doesn't strike me as a town v town either though.

[Hopkirk]

@Cheeky: Where had you read up to while you were discussing with North near the top of this page? There’s something confusing me that this might help me answer.

i'd like to add that i entirely agree with btd6 here, at least regarding the idea of "hedging". i don't see the point in lying about the strength of your reads and i don't think it would be good game practice to force your reads to be stronger than they are. having weak reads by itself isn't scummy, i think you would have to look at the context surrounding that read ie do you believe it's disingenuous, is it only to push a mislynch or to hop on a wagon, does it wildly contract previous behavior, etc.

How can you be avoiding confbias regarding reads you don't even have yet. Like as far as I can tell you havent read a single post made my northsidegal or Chip bitty or Sobeov/Zito slot. Can you say something about your read on them so far.

this i agree with, though. you should probably read the thread - it's not very long.

also, welcome back i suppose to cheeky.

After reading this I looked back at Lycanfire's ISO and realized the deadline is 8 days, not the 3ish i thought it was when BT entered. Turns out i was looking at an older post, and didn't notice the deadline had been extended by 7 days. Hedging becomes less significant with this in mind, since the lack of no lynch as a possible threat takes away one of the motivations.

[Hopkirk]

@Cheeky: Where had you read up to while you were discussing with North near the top of this page? There’s something confusing me that this might help me answer.

I read your posts and NSG's just before I was going to sub out when I was responding to them. Then I ISO'd BTD, and had a look at micc vs BTD. Skimmed zito. Why?

I was wondering if you'd read BTD's posts before the discussion, which would make it odd you only commented on them after North asked, but that obviously wasn't the case, which is good.

[Hopkirk]

@hopkirk, cheeky is back in the game and you haven't moved your vote back. is this intentional, as in you believe that btd6 is more likely to be scum or a better lynch today than cheeky, or did you simply forget? or is there some other reason? by the way, you've yet to say anything about zito's entrance. thoughts on zito and that slot as a whole?

Intentionally not changed because I'm asking BTD questions at the moment.
Papa hasn't really said anything to affect my read so he keeps the townread I had on Soblov. Plus POE since there's four people I'm suspicious of right now.

[Hopkirk]

To qualify that, Sobolev looked authentic/I could follow his thought process well enough- even thought it was almost the opposite of mine readwise.

[Hopkirk]

Do you mean you've still got questions for me, or for Zito?
Kind of crazy Kawso's slot is going for a 4th player without the slot really having posted.

[Hopkirk]

I was wondering about that, given mafia looks hard to play in this setup. Had a look, and two of the three- LUV/TTC are both active elsewhere. Seems odd, but on the other hand from what I know of LUV he wouldn't sub out due tohis role, and Kawso hasn't posted at all on the site since them, so it's probably coincidence.

[Hopkirk]

'So here's your problem my friend. You've casually insinuated a few times now that my actions are "scummy" without actually giving any backing to the claim.'

This is exactly how Chip was acting with his read on me earlier too. Like it even less now it's a pattern.
VOTE: Chip

Still want BTD's response to my response on his response.

[Hopkirk]

I like that this wagon is exclusively made of all my town reads.

[Hopkirk]

I think you missed 466 the first two times BTD.

[Hopkirk]

intent to hammer in 12 hours

Could you go through your read on Chip, since you haven't given any reads yet?

For the record, I am reserving my real reads list until everyone else has posted theirs, i don't want "sheep the confotown's reads" being a thing.

[Cabd]
[SS, CT, NSG]
[Micc
[Hopkirk]
[]

*Not enough input: BTD6, Kawso

So here is the readlist which broke Micc's s heart by relegating him to null. Time for an update.

[Cabd]
[CT, Micc, BTD]
[NSG]
[Hopkirk, PZ]
[]

UCV: not enough input.
Micc gets re-promoted because of recent interplay with PZ and Hopkirk (unlikely to be scum with either) but also because all that stuff about him being good by virtue of being a setup designer is off the table now. Bustling town i think.
BTD has joined the game. Seems cautious / non-committal but that's okay for now. Overall, don't really like the wagon he had on him earlier.
Ive put NSG as null, a demotion, but this might be a bit harsh. Mainly to do with interactions with CT. Will get around to that when i have time.
Hopkirk rating is provisional, as i need to do an updated ISO there.
The only reason PZ is not on the bottom tier is I'm waiting to see if Cabd can clear up 518 for me.

These reads don't even make sense. Micc is town because I'm scum and he can't be my partner, but I'm 'provisional' rather than scum like the Micc read would suggest. If you believe part 1 then part 2 makes me scum. You also said you were doing that ISO about a week ago.

[Hopkirk]

@PZ: Okay that's fine, i think. A couple of people here seem to know you, so i guess you're not gonna lie about your playstyle / philosophy. That would seem to explain why nobody but me had a problem with this low info approach of your

I have to say i feel a bit like policy lynching you though, sinply because when you roll scum this low info thing would be great for skating through the first few days..

If you'd policy lynch for 'that' then how would you ever get any real lynching done.

[Hopkirk]

I thought that was L1.

[Hopkirk]

It was a hammer. I just usually catch up by going through the pages, making posts, and clicking back when I get the confirmation screen.

[Hopkirk]

That really would have looked scummy coming from anyone, but CheekyTeeky! In fact. It honestly makes me town read her!

Based on your reads today it sounds like you still agree with this. Could you explain why, especially in light of the lynch/flip?

Micc was more likely than Zito to be bussing imo. But his posts this day phase look obv. town.

I disagree with this. I don't think either was bussing, but Micc's long interactions with Chip looks like TvS. What do you think of the interactions?

a lot of your reasoning on how my posts make me chip's partner come off as if you already started with the perspective of me being chip's partner and then used that to explain how my posts made sense in that context, rather than starting from a neutral context.

This isn't true in the least.

If you want to live past today I'd suggest you start actually doing some work instead of trying to pick fights with Extremely Likely Townies.

Thirding this. I don't like it when people handwave away valid points.

l-1! please dont hammer. i mean. this goes with out saying, but it is always good to Say it when you put some one at l-1

This sounds overly concerned. If you were concerned why didn't you unvote? Especially since you unvote North a bit after, saying you misread something. It sounds like you were putting him on (what you thought was at least L1?) without actually rereading anything.

I will look at his case and see if there is anything other than the fact he didn't vote chip that would point him to being scum!

This sounds like a good way to get confirmation bias.

@UC: 673 In regard to the fourth point, what do you mean neither of them had a good mislynch? North had 2 votes and BTD had 3 at that point, there’s a clear counterwagon there that neither of them were on. This strikes me as town points for BTD, not scum points.

@BTD: I still want you to answer the questions I asked you/responses from earlier. This is the third time you haven't responded.

[Hopkirk]

Papa Zito made a lot of good points. I think he had a solid case.

Can you please quote his case and break down how it made sense to you?

The stuff PZ pointed out is a large part of why Chip moved to the top of my scumpile. It was strong.

Saying words and criticising is not equal to a case. If you had actually paid attention to the interaction you'd know that all of zito's points weren't true. Chip was actually doing the things Zito said he should be doing as town.

You not seeing the hypocrisy makes me feel like you're not reading the game properly because you know people's alignments. Also you attacking BTD feels like a cheap push. Your hesitation to vote NSG makes me believe she could be town. One of you two are scum and it could very well be you.

VOTE: UCV

My cheap push? Did you read what I said. Did you even look at the chip defending BTD6, BTD6 defending chip? They seemed to support each other a lot. Didn't ever question each Other.
If I were scum, my best move would to support the NSG case. It is a way easier wagon than BTD6!

I never like hearing 'If I were scum I would x'.

Currently my thoughts (most likely scum) are BTD>UC>Cheeky, but I haven't looked at interactions yet. Also just realized I could have done these over the night in this setup.

VOTE: BTD for now

[Hopkirk]

Might not be able to do a solid read through for a few days. Might be able to do it today.

BTD’s stuff makes more sense given the context that he missed Cheeky’s initial replace out/replace back in (in regard to me voting him over Cheeky).

North feels like new town (which I too frequently misread as scum) who’s actually trying.

UNVOTE: BTD
VOTE: UC

btd6 why are you still responding to yesterday's back and forths instead of talking about things going on today? unless you're trying to make some case on hopkirk with those posts as evidence, the game state has changed and your posts should too. i can understand if you feel like something critical had gone unsaid but i don't get that feeling from your posts.

Did you miss me asking (as BTD has quoted), or did you have another reason for asking this?

[Hopkirk]

You argued hard against his wagon. End of.

Q: Should we, under no circumstances, lynch you today (y/n)?

oh,

was

defending. yeah, i misread him. are you really going to lynch me because i read someone as town and then tried to stop my townread from getting lynched on a case i thought was weak? just because i made a mistake? i think you should give me a little bit more credit that if i were scum i could do something a bit more subtle or with a bit more nuance than hard defending my partner, yeah?

as for the question, it depends on what exactly you're asking. i know that i'm town so i know for a fact that a lynch on me would be a mislynch, but if i did something ridiculous like counterclaim cabd or scumclaim or something then i could see how it would be reasonable for people to want to lynch me. i don't plan on doing anything like that, so yeah, a lynch on me is a bad idea.

The tone in the second paragraph seems odd. You don't want to get lynched sure, but it sounds like (arguably you say explicitly) you don't understand why people want to lynch you, when there's some pretty obvious reasons.

Alright, I'm back on the train. I read back and still think northsidegal's interactions with Chip look like they are partners. Her lack of comment or interest on UC voyager's case against BTD is evidence that she's not trying to sort UC despite him being present and in her lynch pool. Waiting for replacements to begin scumhunting is also the tell I've had the most success with across multiple games, so that's another thing against her.

VOTE: northsidegal

First bit I haven't analysed much yet.
Second bit I think makes North more town. Scum North would have to have a lot of mislynched happen to get to lylo, so his focus on one lynch doesn't help him in the long term.
Third bit I can't argue with, so I'll take as scumpoints.

[Hopkirk]

54- Calls Micc town despite/because of his Chip vote.
106- Micc null/slight town.
162- Opposes North wagon.
242- Micc town again.
249- Claims to be very focused on responding to Micc.
256- Likes North.
292/4- Cheeky and Sobolov townreads without any interactions. Sobolov/Zito doesn’t have any reasons in the next post. Micc back to neutral. Me as scum lean. North read seems odd given Chip townreads Cheeky for points on North.
308- Opposed to Kawso/UV lynch.
315- Seems annoyed with Micc.
341- Planning to lower activity until Kawso/BTD start posting despite having no interacts with several people, notably Cheeky.
357- Refuses to do the ISO of me he said he’d do.
368- Part of his scumread on me is from me scumreading North.
481- Micc read might have changed again. It’s unclear.
510- ‘Won’t be lynching BTD today’ after BTD has made a couple of posts.
514- Scum/town read on Zito at the same time. No further interactions.
515- Explicitly brings up his lack of voting anyone.
521- Attack on PZ.
535- Says he’ll vote when UC ways in. Could be waiting to see what position UC takes- potentially explains Chip’s lack of voting/solid stances.
550- Still seems to have PZ as scum. Seems oddly reluctant to pressure him though.
565/7- more against PZ.
579- Null on North after North defends him seems odd if they’re partners.
592- Not commenting on UC despite being really interested in getting UC to post.

Micc/Chip look bad, so one of them would have dropped it a lot sooner unless they were intending a hard bus. That is very unlikely since Chip’s read on Micc fluctuates far too much for things to be planned, and it doesn’t look like something that would naturally occur.
Given his major focus with me, Micc, and Papa Zito (and arguably Cabd before the claim), I’m inclined to think he’d be ignoring his partner. By that metric, Cheeky would be the most likely partner as despite saying he wants to interact with her more, he never actually pushes to try. UC would be second. Then there’s a wide gap for BTP/North.
North townreads Chip, but Chip doesn’t really ever defend North outside of attacking me based on my North read, and he’s got him as null later on.
From Chip’s posts, Micc/PZ look even better, Cheeky/UC look worst.

[Hopkirk]

I was planning to do a read through of North to look at interactions on his side next, but there's no point doing that if he's voting himself.

UC, can you respond to the points I raised on you?

[Hopkirk]

'UC Voyager, Micc, CheekyTeeky, and Hopkirk.' Is this in order (since UC is first)? If so why Micc before Cheeeky?

[Hopkirk]

Can you respond to this quickly.
'@UC: 673 In regard to the fourth point, what do you mean neither of them had a good mislynch? North had 2 votes and BTD had 3 at that point, there’s a clear counterwagon there that neither of them were on. This strikes me as town points for BTD, not scum points.'

[Hopkirk]

2 votes out of 5. One of them votes and it's 3/5, which is equal size to the BTD wagon.

[Hopkirk]

You said there was no counterwagon.
If either of them voted then BTD and North would both be on 3 votes.

[Hopkirk]

You said there was no counterwagon.
If either of them voted then BTD and North would both be on 3 votes.

Sum won't vote u less they have a good case...

This is untrue.

There wasn't enough to make a case on Noeth

There was two people on him already, not including me (and I'd made a case earlier). It's not legitimate to say that making a case on North would have been impossible for scum.

[Hopkirk]

It doesn't make much sense from anyone other than Cheeky's slot. Especially since that's who I was going to vote today.
Kind of weird BTD assumed Cheeky was innocent/there was a severe mod error automatically without asking any questions, but it's now more likely Cheeky than him.
I'll leave the hammer to Cabd if he wants it.

[Hopkirk]

General nightskip is when everyone pms the mod during the night to end it right?
I'm happy with whatever.

[Hopkirk]

Zito is least likely scum for me too since his read/interactions with Chip played a somewhat significant part in my vote on Chip, and his arguments didn't look like bussing.

BTD still most likely, but it's possible Micc/Chip were hard bussing, so I want to reread Micc first.

[Hopkirk]

@BTD: why would scum Micc do that (ask for clarification publically) instead of just asking Lycanfire by PM to publically clarify what he'd do at the start of the day?

[Hopkirk]

You're accusing me of deliberately taking advantage of the moderator's role and influence on the game to advance my win condition. Please stop with that crap.

What makes Zito's pressure on Chip less likely to be bussing than mine? I was after him for the entirety of Day 1.

Why Zito is least likely of possible scum/why he was less likely to be bussing.

Firstly, Zito couldn’t have planned a bus since a.) his predecessor had a fairly consistent Chip town read, and b.) he subbed in so couldn’t plan it.

Zito’s read on Chip naturally develops in 518-520-522-524-532-542. His criticisms of Chip also aligned with my earlier suspicions on Chip, so are legitimate rather than looking made up to bus. The alternative to town Zito would be Zito getting fed up with a partner and bussing him accidently (without expecting it to get a lynch), but that doesn’t fit since Zito keeps pushing the same points.

[Hopkirk]

The main reason I'm concerned Micc might have been hard bussing Chip is more related to Chip's posts than Micc's. Chip doesn't really respond to Micc's push in the same way he responds to Zito (with an actual vote), despite obsessing with Micc being about half the content of his posts. Yesterday I was thinking this made Micc lean more town, but if it's a one way bus (Micc pushing Chip but not Chip pushing Micc), that could explain why Chip's Micc read is weirdly inconsistent.

VOTE: Chip butty
Well none of that moved me away from wanting to see this wagon happen. I don't like his trajectory on me. He moved me from towniest among the active slots to being null simply by not posting for a day. I thought the creater of the setup thing was a joke at first but he reemphisised it without anyone else bringing it up and I can't see why he's letting that have an impact on his read.

My understanding of his point against hopkirk is that hopkirks reads are superficial and or lack deep analysis. Not only do I disagree with that I think I could accuse Chip of that same thing. Seems like more of his reads are activity based than anything else which I see as very superficial.

I still like the justifications around the initial push since they were the same as why I had Chip as light scum.

Seriously Chip. Put a vote into play.

Predit: haha, haven't you realized that Chip's go to method of reading people is that activity=Town, any sign of lurkyness=scum and absent=null.

The first line here is the main thing that made me a little suspicious in a reread, could be instructing a partner/trying to push him for a bus.

[Hopkirk]

Will do a reread BTD later, but he's currently my top scumread.

[Hopkirk]

Cheeky was legitimately scummy, so I don't see how framing them would be worth it for scum. The only advantage I can see for scum is that getting rid of Cheeky stops a new pair of eyes entering the game, but that only works if Cheeky didn't get replaced before being lynched, or after being lynched.

[Hopkirk]

Rereading BTD now. I thought he’d subbed in, didn’t realize he was here from the start.

383 The slight scumread on Cheeky without a vote reminds me a bit of Chip’s reluctance to put a vote down. Maybe scum wanted to avoid making enemies. Still seems like on odd catch up in terms of what it’s lacking. Doesn’t take any particularly strong stances until 507, but explains why.
As I said before, the contradiction hunting stuff makes sense on the assumption BTD missed Cheeky’s sub out/back in thing. Looking back, it seems slightly weird he’d have missed it given his Cheeky interaction. Plus I don’t like that I had to ask him to respond several times.
Still don’t see the problem with the votecount where BTD/Chip are the only ones not voting. This makes BTD less likely scum imo since they had opportunity and incentive to form a counterwagon if both scum, and didn’t.
808 I didn’t/still don’t like how quick BTD was to clear Cheeky. It seems like he automatically assumed there’d been what would have effectively been a severe mod error (clearing a slot), so I don’t see why he has a problem with Micc asking for clarification- since that seemed fully reasonable.
UC dying kind of helps BTD since UC was voting/fully pushing BTD. Still doesn’t seem optimal though.
Main reason is still Chip being somewhat defensive of BTD, and BTD not talking much about chip and not voting him in the end, which seems more likely than a bus in this setup.

As an unrelated point, the action policy is even worse than I thought.
‘Additionally, if an ignite were win the game, there would be no die roll.’
Since scum shouldn’t know an ignite would win the game.

[Hopkirk]

Sure, we disagree on ethics. Let's never play in each other's games again and agree to drop this line of conversation.

You're scum for everything I talked about in 856. Your push on me is part of it too but more so from a standpoint of scum have to make bad pushes and your push is bad. Finally, I don't want you in lylo because I know I wouldn't be able to lynch anyone else no matter how much I reconsidered.

Surely most lylo's would contain Cabd, and the third person would be confirmed scum at that point.

[Hopkirk]

827 My problem with the UC kill is that UC was a likely mislynch. If he hadn’t died then I would have continued voting for him.
As I said before, I also don’t see why Micc wouldn’t just ask Lycanfire to say in thread what his process was by pm during the night. There’s no reason for scum Micc to ask Lycanfire to clarify in the thread instead of by PM.

[Hopkirk]

'Do you think scum generally make worse pushes than Town? If so, do you have the statistics to back it up?'

Quality of a push is subjective. What kind of statistics would you consider legitimate?

[Hopkirk]

'Hopkirk didn't post until after the hammer. That doesn't really tell anything about whether he was looking to get off the wagon. It's possible that he was looking to get off. Hopkirk town read is a lot less strong because of this.'

I made several posts when I thought it was L1.

Strongest evidence I can provide to demonstarte I thought it was L1: If there's a few pages of new posts then my playstyle is to post as I read (90% of the time, unless I'm looking offline on my phone and see there's only one/two new posts), rather than waiting until I'm done reading. Here's an example of me explicitly saying that as town viewtopic.php?p=9267535#p9267535 but it's pretty obvious that's how i post in most games (town or scum).

[Hopkirk]

'Quality of a push is subjective, but I would start by looking for things like whether the push contains logical fallacies, misrepresentation etc. Those are bad pushes (at least, when they are the only reason) regardless of whether the target is Town or scum.'

Hence, using 'give me detailed statistics of something that's very difficult to collect since it requires very in depth reading' is a bad counterargument to use since nobody is going to do that. That's putting the burden of proof unrealistically high in order to dismiss something, which sounds like a fallacy in itself.

[Hopkirk]

'Quality of a push is subjective, but I would start by looking for things like whether the push contains logical fallacies, misrepresentation etc. Those are bad pushes (at least, when they are the only reason) regardless of whether the target is Town or scum.'

Hence, using 'give me detailed statistics of something that's very difficult to collect since it requires very in depth reading' is a bad counterargument to use since nobody is going to do that. That's putting the burden of proof unrealistically high in order to dismiss something, which sounds like a fallacy in itself.

The point is that there has to be at least some evidence. You cannot simply say that scum make worse pushes without any sort of evidence whatsoever, and I have seen none here. Thus, the most reasonable response would simply be to not use that as a reason in a case. What evidence would you consider reasonable? If there is no evidence (that someone would be able to realistically search for) then the entire assertion is unjustified and should be rejected.

I'd assume it would be implicit that the average scum make worse pushes (in non multiball) since they can't find legitimate scum and so can't find things legitimately scummy.
If scum/town make indistinguishable pushes then how is anything better than random chance? If you can’t look at content/motivation then how can you actually play/what do you look at?

[Hopkirk]

Non game relatedish: The average scum push should be worse since the average player =/= the most experienced players who know how to perfectly make fake pushes look good.
Also, you didn’t address why scum can so easily avoid the factors that make a good push harder.

Second problem is common in most things, but also virtually impossible to test in mafia given there’s incentives to sound surer about reads than you are (Confidence seems to make people agree more than fence sitting- which isn’t widely liked either, plus personally I like it since it inherently seems like it produces more pressure), and it’s more common for experienced players to play low information based, so you don’t get full/average data sets.

Game related: you seem to be focusing more on Micc than your theorising would suggest you would/should.

Also might as well do this now,
VOTE: BTD

[Hopkirk]

'Why would I ignite, though? If I thought it cleared CheekyTeeky...'

I think it would be fair to assume at least one person in the game is going to ask for clarification about how Lycan would resolve that issue. Especially given there's a few fairly experienced people here. If you're scum then the assumption is that you asked how it would be resolved before, then waited for Micc/someone else to ask how it would be resolved.

[Hopkirk]

I'm not accusing you of it, I'm saying that it's null on Micc and everyone so you shouldn't use it as a reason you can't be scum/wouldn't ignite there.

[Hopkirk]

I'll be V/LA from around 5pm GMT today until late thursday/early friday.

[Hopkirk]

Currently leaning towards Micc as scum>Zito, but I need to reread again.

[Hopkirk]

Pretty much, Chip was never my highest scumread before then, then he became my highest scumread.

When I switched away from Cheeky to BTD that was because she had subbed out and BTD had just (effectively) come in. I was intending to switch to Cheeky again when the slot got a sub since she was still my top scumread by a fair margin. I didn’t vote Chip there since a.) BTD stuff- I wanted to engage with him to sort someone I hadn’t sorted, and since it was closer than Chip’s problematic stuff, and b.) it didn’t make much sense to push Chip when I was intending to switch back to the Cheeky slot when a sub came in. At that point, Chip was less scummy than Cheeky.

I became more suspicious of BTD and less of Cheeky after she responded satisfactorily. Voting BTD wasn’t getting him to answer questions (so leaving my vote on him to get answers was somewhat redundant), plus the wagon was falling apart anyway. Still scumread BTD, but a vote there wasn’t doing much.
At the same time, Chip’s interactions with PZ, and what I said that PZ pointed out specifically, made me more suspicious of Chip than before. It reminded me of Chip’s earlier interactions with me that I hadn’t liked, but hadn’t been enough to make him scummier than Cheeky before. That made him scummier than BTD (who I scumread in a fair part for not answering questions).
In summary- Chip was a lesser scumread compared to others for most of the game to that point. Scumread on Chip increased while other scumreads (or places to vote) decreased.

I’ll quote some stuff from my iso now and respond to your other questions then.

[Hopkirk]

345- At this point I was still discussing my North case, which I saw merit in. Said around here that I only scumleaned on Chip too.
372- If someone says ‘x is true’ when x is demonstrably false, and sticks to it when it’s explicitly pointed out, and after that refuses to engage, then I will always vote that person. She flipped town, but acting like that is always heavily anti-town, which is a better scum indicator than other stuff.
425- I unvoted because Cheeky said she was subbing out. I also hadn’t interacted with the slot, and it’s good to interact. Other reasons too, but I explained them in more detail last post. I also voted him partially as a potential Cheeky partner since Cheeky was by far my top scumread then.
I don’t see how it’s strange I voted him when I thought he subbed in. I thought he subbed in because he had no significant posts, so I didn’t remember him in thread before. In terms practical effect in that regard, he did sub in. I didn’t like his entrance.

[Hopkirk]

On what I think I’d have done (differently) as scum:
General play (obviously less significant)
As scum, Idk if I’d have switched to BTD instead of a.) switching back to North and pushed them more (rather than starting to reconsider my read), or b.) taking advantage of Cheeky subbing out to not do anything for a while.
Don’t recall getting as (vocally) annoyed at something as Cheeky’s not responding as scum either, but I could still see myself getting somewhat annoyed there.
My read on North changing after tunnelling is fairly consistent with my town play. I recognise I frequently confuse new players/play I don’t like as scummy (initially). I think I tunnel harder/longer on it as scum (slightly), and would have been less likely to change my read on Cheeky in general.

Specific game points
Would have 100% targeted PZ as scum d1 since (at the time) I was sure that he was town.
On a similar note, it would be stupid of me to put UC as my top scumread and work at lynching him if I’d targeted him N1. Scum would want to avoid lynching people they’d targeted. Probably would have gone after BTD/North instead there.

I think my read progression makes sense, except maybe that i didn't state all that explicitly specifically when my scumread on Cheeky lessened, so if you've got any other questions there.

[Hopkirk]

It seems like you’re under the impression that I scumread BTD before his catch-up posts. This is completely wrong.

‘why did you vote BTD over Chip there. Like if I'm going through your ISO and looking at your stated thoughts and reads the only mention of BTD from you before your vote on him’
As I’ve said, I thought I was voting someone who subbed in, and he was functionally equivalent to someone who’d subbed in anyway. I voted purely based on his previous few posts because they struck me as odd, and because I was intending to switch back to Cheeky later (though that changed based on BTD/Cheeky’s later posts). Chip was at a similar scumread level to North at this point for me. If I’d have voted one of them, it would have been North at that point. I didn’t vote North for the same reasons I didn’t vote Chip.
Also, as I said, my vote on BTD was largely to interact with someone I hadn’t interacted with. Voting North/Chip doesn’t provide that same value.

I wasn’t questioning my Chip scumread at that point, I just had him as light scum when I had Cheeky as hard scum.

[Hopkirk]

In this setup I’d probably protect myself around 90% of the time. I don’t see why scum would be concerned about Cabd protecting people other than himself (or if I did expect it, then I’d target Cabd).
Plus your logic applies equally to Micc/PZ. You’re only assuming Cabd would protect them more than me since you’re working from the position that I’m more likely scum than them.

[Hopkirk]

PZ’s early interactions with Chip could be viewed as him trying to push a partner into doing more, and deciding to bus when he realizes Chip isn’t (in 527). It’s kind of odd I suppose that he waits until the fifth time he pushes it to vote Chip. I’d say this is definitely odder than me voting BTD>Chip when PZ doesn’t lay any of the reasons he’s voting BTD (instead of say switching the third time) out. 527 not containing a vote is actually really weird, and it does sound like he could be saying ‘do this Chip, or I’ll be forced to bus’. Not sure why he switched later instead of here.
The vote in 532 comes when he doesn’t have the option not to vote (Cabd/Micc/Me have all switched, and nobody else is on BTD, so that’s not a counterwagon PZ could stay on).
He kind of coasts on the townread after that. Apart from 910, there’s nothing I really like.
In retrospect, the stuff that made me switch could have easily been something PZ was frustrated a partner was doing.

[Hopkirk]

Eh, see I can understand the "I use my votes to interact with players that I don't feel great about", it's not something I'd do with my vote as town but it's something I completely believe is something you would do. I'm just not reading the vote on BTD there at all as one of those type of votes? I can see it with lots of the others but that one feels more like a "Here's reasons why I think X is scum so I'll move to him since my scum read left" and that's where I think the disconnect is for me since I think the reasoning, your prior posts and a bunch of things should lead towards you voting Chip there.

The BTD vote for me personally looks like a "I can't keep my vote on the person that replaced out since that won't look great and I know Micc pointed this out from someone else earlier, I should move my vote, BTD looks like an easy spot" which feels scum motivated particularly if you factor in the flips.

'You're acting far too much like my suspicion was major, as opposed to a lean based on an off opening- which i find more suspicious than the opening itself since that's an odd/self-focused reaction.'

That was in my post after voting BTD. I think it's pretty clear it was a minor lean on a bad entrance.

In this setup I’d probably protect myself around 90% of the time. I don’t see why scum would be concerned about Cabd protecting people other than himself (or if I did expect it, then I’d target Cabd).
Plus your logic applies equally to Micc/PZ. You’re only assuming Cabd would protect them more than me since you’re working from the position that I’m more likely scum than them.

But then you go into the "Scum think Cabd is protecting himself 90% of the time and therefore won't target him, that means Cabd can target elsewhere and be safe majority of the time" type mind games which just inevitably lead towards mafia wanting to select someone that won't be Cabds first choice if it's not himself.

And uh, I said mafia not targeting you N1 was meaningless, I don't think that makes you mafia ore more likely to be mafia at all, you're misconstruing what I've stated there. What I'm saying is that you were one of the few (maybe the only?) person that put forward UC's name as a lynch target D2, now that we know that he was primed N1 and that mafia

also

made the weird and suboptimal choice of selecting to whisper him N2 to outright reveal he was primed N1 I can see you doing that as scum to bring up this "I wouldn't push someone I selected" argument which you did bring up and was your go to when questioned.

Obviously I can only give my thoughts on what I'd do in the scenario since I haven't thought about it. However, when I play irl we usually use a Cop/Doc (who can self protect but not target the same person twice in a row) (though there's no flips), in about 200 games there's no case that comes to mind where a doctor didn't protect either themself or one of the cop/other pr claims after there were claims. Given that, I'd say I'd have been much more likely to self protect as Cabd, or to assume he'd self protect.

You implied it made me look worse than Micc/PZ when it's equivilent, except that I pushed UC the next day. I also would have most likely kept voting UC if they hadn't died. I also hadn't brought up that argument until you asked me just now. If that was the sole reason i made a suboptimal play, then why would i wait until now? The benefit i'd get even if it went perfectly is less than I'd get from an extra mislynch on UC. Most likely scenario to me seems that either scum wanted confusion, or made a mistake of some kind (could have been a mod error possibly i guess too).

[Hopkirk]

Will come back to Micc later (some time this evening probably) since I'm having a computer issue i need to resolve (that could take a while). Leaning more PZ right now though.

[Hopkirk]

Not got time for the Micc reread yet, but can respond to stuff quickly.
@Regfan/985- It’s not Cop, but it’s the same principle. A majority of my play (in term of setups played) worked under a meta of protect yourself/a power role and don’t risk not doing so. I’d probably follow that meta, unless I recognised this. By mistake, I meant like submitting something wrong or the mod mixed up an action or something like that, not a bad decision- though obviously that’s less likely. Also don’t have time to expand on PZ, but I’m like 60-40 swinging between the two rather than having 90% solid reads either way. From my recent read of PZ, his Chip interactions look worse than I remembered, which edged it over Micc. I need to have a more in depth look at his later content to see if it is actually low content like it looked at a first look.
@Cabd, I know this goes without saying, but on the 1% chance it needs to be said don’t give your target from last night.

[Hopkirk]

@Micc: Is the setup really punishing to scum if they hard bus day one? It seems like since we’ve been working under the assumption scum wouldn’t bus, if scum predicted we’d assume that then you/PZ/me as scum would all be safe until this point. If UC hadn’t died, it’d probably (depending on Cabd protects I think) be a 5p probable lylo by this stage, which scum would have a good chance in.
Hard bus being bad move (like you seem to say it objectively is) is really wifomy in my opinion since the scenario we’ve got is looking good for scum even with the weird UC kill. Every lynch so far has been based largely on the logic that scum wouldn’t bus, and it looks like people are leaning more towards me being scum in a large part because I would be the lightest bus if scum- which means a hard bus would win the game, hence definitely not be a bad move.
In light of that/this, I’m curious why you’d say a hard bus is a bad/suboptimal move?

2.) can you expand on this point ‘Hopkirk feels like he's more or less just been here. I'm aware that if Zito's scum his long game strategy has been to have me in his pocket all game by echoing my thoughts the whole way’
I was pushing UC/BTD d2/4, and against North. D3 I held the same view of Cheeky as everyone did. I’m curious why you think my pushes against UC/BTD were ‘just being there’, especially since PZ had a lot less content than me.

[Hopkirk]

For the record, I'll reveal who i targeted each night later. Probably after regfan snuggles. It wasn't 100% self.

Eh, it's probably better if you don't? I mean from a curiosity point of view I'd love to hear but I don't see how it'll actually assist us at all and if anything just lets mafia know if they can 'Call whisperes' and win tonight if we mslynch today. So yeah, unless you think it helps us decide who's mafia hold that info.

N1/2 should be fine to hear.

I went back to do VCA but the votecounts are too sparse. I'll have to manually recreate the various Day 1 wagons by hand which'll be fun. I'll work on that tonight.

I'm not a huge fan of VCA in most games but in this one with only 2 scum members and a D1 scum lynch I'm even more leery of it so what particularly do you think you

might

find from it that'll be helpful in solving this? Only asking because I fear you'll come out of this learning nothing and having spent quite some time on it whereas I'd rather you spend a little of that just laying down your unfiltered thoughts of the situation at hand.

I agree. It sounds like busywork/less valuable than isoing.

[Hopkirk]

1000/1 where written together btw, but i seperated them since they were very different topics.

[Hopkirk]

I forgot PZ subbed in and I can consider SS too. Should be able to do either that or Micc later this evening.

@Micc/1010: Theory debate about the setup is pretty important given your reads are based on theory of how people would play in this setup… Why isn’t this important.
Second part I will be looking out for.

@Regfan/1025:
a.) Why are you ignoring that I scumread North more than Chip? I don’t see why you’d expect me to vote for Chip over North here if I’d chosen not to vote BTD.
b.) Here’s the thing, you can’t say ‘Hopkirk would only think about this if he was mafia’ when you directly asked me to think about it today, and I spent 15+ minutes thinking about it.
Also if you don’t think the cop doctor think fit then you clearly don’t understand what I was saying there. After thinking about it (when you asked me to think about it remember), I recognised it was similar to the meta that 70% of my games have been played under, so I’d have likely followed that meta as scum (unless I recognised it was meta then I guess and tried to avoid it).
I also maintain that if I was scum, PZ would have been the best pick n1 for me. You’re claiming it isn’t, and handwaving my thoughts on why it would be.

[Hopkirk]

Still short on time, pretty busy irl at the moment.

@Micc: It doesn’t affect my read on you, it affects your read on me/Zito.

@Regfan:
a.) Most recently mentioned clearly differs from most significant.
b.) You literally asked it

very explicitly

. To quote you, ‘Like what do you think you've done here that's outside your scum range or do you think you'd have done differently if scum?’ To respond to that, I looked through my ISO thinking what I’d have done/done different as scum. I don’t get how you expected me to respond, obviously you wanted me to think about it, but now you’re saying that I’d only think of things I thought of when asked to think about it if I was scum who’d thought of them before.
c.) I don’t get what you’re saying here. I was using the example to say that we’d just assume doctor was self-protecting/protecting cop, so I probably would have assumed Cabd would self-protect- like a doctor self-heals very frequently. The differences of doc not being able to save twice, and no flips promoting fake claims obviously reduced cop power anyway.

[Hopkirk]

Not got tons of time, but I’m going to try and get through Micc/SS now anyway.

b.) That’s not what you asked. You asked me to think about it, then said that you thought I was scum for thinking about it. It seems insane that you seem to be implying that I could only think about what it’d do as scum if I was scum, after you asked me what I’d do (differently) as scum.

c.) I’ve laid it out pretty clearly, and if you’re summarising it as ‘Cabd would x’, when it’s clearly about what I’d do, not what Cabd would do then you don’t understand, and should be reading things a lot more carefully…

Side point, why does PZ make 910 as scum. I feel it would make a lot more sense for him to present me as less of a townread there.

On a.)/my BTD vote. You’ve said several times now that I’d mentioned Chip right before then. The last time I’d mentioned Chip was 4 days before that, and around 50 posts, where I said he was a scumlean, as opposed to harder scumreads like North/Cheeky. I don’t get the logic you’re trying to push that it’s a break in my reads progression.
Even if I hadn’t voted BTD, for legitimate reasons, then there’s n
o reason I’d have voted Chip over North at that stage… since North was a higher scumread. I also clearly said that it was a vote made while waiting for Cheeky. You know why? Because there’s 0 town motivation to directly misquote someone and lie about they said like Cheeky was doing. It’s a wasted vote on the empty slot, but there wasn’t any point going after my second highest scumread (North) or Chip who you seem to think was my highest scumread for some still unknown reason, when I was 90% sure Cheeky was scum and I fully intended to switch back when the slot was full and had made its own catch up post. Obviously I didn’t like BTD’s response to my vote, you can see that from 466 where I ask him several paragraphs worth of questions/things I disliked about his post. In case you can’t work out how the reads progression worked there either, then it means that I scumread him more than when he didn’t have scummy posts. Hopefully this doesn’t lead into another inane bunch of repetition on points that should have been resolved before.

[Hopkirk]

Not much point leaving my vote where it is when it’s waiting for a replacement.
VOTE: BTD6

383 – Gives light scumread on Cheeky, doesn’t follow it with a vote, and promises more content later.
421 - Two days later. No further catch up. Follows up slightly on Cheeky but no vote. Complains about activity (kind of ironically).

Don’t really like the entrance. Both those posts look longish, but have no significant content in them. I could very easily see the Cheeky vote as a bus.

Like, lets just look at the above reasons here.

His posts about #383 is mostly fine but his points about 421 is actually really really really really bad.

BTD didn't vote Cheeky because the slot was getting replaced, the same reason that Hopkirk was unvoting Cheeky to vote BTD so this should absolutely not be something that Hopkirk could be scum reading. Similarly Cheeky was fucking replacing out, how could BTD have followed up on her more when the slot was empty? How is that something to scum read him for. There's no further catch up but there is him saying in that post that he'll be having more spare time later that day where Hopkirk votes him before he gets a chance to get around to. So when you're looking at this and calling it a 'good' or 'logical' vote I'm left just going ????

It was not taking a stance on Cheeky/looking like he was waiting to decide whether to bus or not that I disliked, not that he didn't vote. Vote I used wrongly a couple of times in the post. I corrected one in my next post, but missed rewording the other one properly. That's because I usually type quite quickly and don't reread them afterwards.

I'm obviously not being clear here, I think there were some solid reasons to be scum reading BTD at that time in the game, I can understand people scum reading him there and think I may have as well actually. What I'm trying to get at is that if you actually open up Hopkirks ISO and look through his reads and thoughts in the day and the progression behind them the BTD one comes out of nowhere. Obviously this'll be partially due to BTD not being active before then but if you look at the timing and reasoning behind this vote I struggle to believe that you liked it since I'd probably have burned him D2 for it.

Look at the reasoning he's presented for the vote, then look at how much (if not all) of that reasoning could be attributed to Chip there and it's bad, add to that the fact that a decent chunk of the reasoning behind the BTD vote just doesn't make sense (Didn't vote Cheeky in his recent post due to replacing out v Hopkirk unvoting Cheeky due to replacing out), like if I'm looking at this reasoning behind his vote the only way I buy it is if he's town and really was confident in Cheeky being scum and was using interaction stuff to convince himself that BTD was more likely due to it but that's a read that'd be attached to him so others looking at that reasoning and calling it good is concerning particularly later in the game when reassessment should have kicked in.

Are you fucking serious here?
>BTD had not made a proper post before that point.
>I cannot have a read on someone before they post.
>Saying my 'read progression' was bad when my read went from 'obviously null because he hasn't been here' to 'slight scum lean after a dodgy opening' is just stupid. It doesn't make sense.

Chip had other posts too, I'd interacted with him. Guess who I hadn't interacted with. The guy with 0 posts. What do you think is more valuable, interacting more with someone you have a slight scumread on who you've interacted with, or someone you have a slight scumread on who you haven't interacted with? It's objectively the second one.

[Hopkirk]

Here's another point of interest for you. Micc literally switched off of Chip to vote BTD without any further reasoning. If you dislike me voting BTD instead of Chip, then that should be even worse. Likewise, if you don't think I had enough reasons, this vote should also be worse. You don't mention Micc's vote switch ever though. Pretty biased reporting.

BTD

[Hopkirk]

Going through Micc. Will post general conclusions at the end. Will also break into a few posts I guess.

Note: This is intended to be a biased assessment, working under the impression Micc is scum and seeing if/how his actions make sense from that starting point.

15: Early attack on Chip could be so the wagon happens here instead of later to discredit a wagon on Chip later. Unlikely though.

136: First stance on someone other than Chip. Read progression on Chip at this point is kind of unclear, but it looks like he’s just pushing someone who doesn’t answer a question (like I definitely would have there) and still scumreads Chip.

142: This is something I don’t really like in this readthrough. Micc’s read on Chip disappearing doesn’t seem to fit with my impression of Micc’s read at that point. Chip hadn’t really responded to Micc’s points in 109, so going back to neutral seems weird. It’s also odd that Micc doesn’t look at the wagon at this stage.

154: Admits he didn’t expect anything to come of the early Chip wagon. This kind of conflicts with his previous post which said there his Chip read was affected by the lack of pressure Chip was under from the wagon, but in 154 says that it wouldn’t really pressure Chip whatever. This could be me misinterpreting what Micc meant though.

164: Micc could be legitimately frustrated at Chip here. Chip should have been pushing someone, and if Micc is his partner, then this is some evidence of trying to push Chip to push someone else (asking him to look at the wagon and push someone there). Obviously though this also comes from Micc who is frustrated town (though I’d have probably revoted Chip at that point, but that could be playstyle difference).

229: Given Chip hasn’t responded that well, I’m surprised Micc unvotes and votes nobody instead of voting Chip. As Regfan would probably say if he didn’t like Micc otherwise, this reads progression doesn’t make much sense since Micc didn’t push his top scumread.

Also to note, Micc only really has stances on North/Chip at this point. After this post, not voting anyone else, it doesn’t look like he has any stances- though he kind of admits this saying he wants to look at lower activity players.

300: Why don’t you want to lynch a lurker could again be interpreted as ‘Chip vote someone’.

312: I agree that the setup creator thing still sounds really weird. Approached from the angle of Chip/Micc, this could be because Chip doesn’t want to attack/bus Micc. On the other hand, he engages Micc quite a lot around here, and it would make sense to avoid that if he wanted to avoid conflict. Micc’s vote could again be interpreted as telling Chip to do something- vote me or improve his case. Alternatively, Micc has given up and decide to just bus because he seems Chip as a detriment (not doing anything after Micc tries to get him to). Micc doesn’t leave a strong enough read on Chip here that he couldn’t retract it if Chip started providing content/value.

326: Given Micc attacks Chip for not having reads, it’s very unlikely that they planned to lie low at the start, could again be treated as telling him to do something. A big part of Micc’s scumread at this stage is because Chip isn’t doing enough.

Chip responds to Micc’s posts without taking any stances. If Micc was his partner pushing him to contribute then he’d be legitimately frustrated at that point, given about 5/6 posts could be him pushing Chip to develop his reads/take stances.

332: ‘I'm pushing you because I think your reasons for scum reading Hopkirk are poorly analyzed’. Obviously, this also comes from town, but it also fits with Micc as frustrated partner.

Also as of this point, Micc doesn’t really have any stances other than on Chip, and a few townreads. Although, other than his townread on me at that point, none of them are really beyond ‘they don’t seem scummy yet so they’re default town’. Nothing solid.

401/3: This is one of the things in the ISO that most make me think Micc is town. There’s no reason for him to try and stop me/Cheeky deathtunneling each other, and nobody else is trying to resolve what has been revealed as a ‘misunderstanding’.

(ISO continued on second page following)

[Hopkirk]

Most significant conclusion so far: Micc pressures Chip a lot less than I thought, has less reads overall than I thought, and ‘frustrated partner theory’ seems like it could be accurate.

414- Again, could be interpreted as ‘I’ll back of if you do something’. Chips reactions of being treated ‘unfairly’ align with this perspective.

427- This didn’t quote properly above for some reason so I’ll quote it here. Micc switches to BTD after I do. If there’s anything wrong with my switch then this is worse, given it’s away from Chip. However, I maintain that BTD was a legitimate switch at this point (though switching away from Chip is slightly bad, though still understandable from a town perspective).

431- Claims BTD vote is because BTD is biggest wagon in his lynchpool (unclear if this is anyone other than BTD/Chip), and because the game needs a wagon. His actual push on BTD is good/legitimate though.

(one of the more important points): It’s kind of odd Micc hasn’t tried to push Chip harder- made a full case post or directly asked people why they aren’t scumreading Chip. He claims to want a wagon, but doesn’t push it as hard as you’d expect given Chip was his only scumread, and he says he’s concerned about time.

Vote on BTD continues for four days without really mentioning Chip, putting a case together on Chip, or really mentioning Chip much (this is between posts 427-505). As of 505- His scumread on Chip sounds like it’s a lean rather than heavy like I got the impression of.

513- Tells Chip very explicitly to vote. Potential frustrated partner again. The explicit nature here would explain that he’s willing to make a vote than could become a lynch here- he’s fed up with Chip not voting/doing stuff despite what could be Micc telling him to do so (in various ways) about 10 times.

530- Interestingly, Micc only switches back to Chip when PZ doesn’t really give him the option not to without looking suspicious. Decreases chance of PZ as well.

Yeah, im on board with this.
VOTE: BTD6_maker

[Hopkirk]

558- Micc says to Chip that he’d still support a BTD wagon if it emerged (Or, ‘hey start a counterwagon on BTD’).

Anyway, rest of the day until end of the day is Chip focused again. Not really anything to get from it though.

Day 2

622- Votes North, pushes afterwards.

687- Against Cheeky’s UCV vote.

745- On North, Micc says ‘Her lack of comment or interest on UC voyager's case against BTD is evidence that she's not trying to sort UC despite him being present and in her lynch pool.’ At this stage, UC is in Micc’s lynch pool. Despite this, Micc doesn’t commend on any of UC’s posts. In the last 150 posts, he hasn’t directly spoken to her (as far as I can tell). Micc is responsible of the same thing he’s criticising in North here, which is pretty odd/makes it a worse push.

End of d2, between 26th October and 31st October (entire day 2), doesn’t engage with UC’s slot at all. Makes Micc more likely to have targeted her n1 since he avoids really critiquing the UC slot (when I think there was a fair bit to critique, hence was voting them).

The ignite doesn’t make sense still. Not going to bother speculating since it’s either a mistake, or designed to make wifom.

Day 3

817- I don’t dislike Micc asking the mod for confirmation, despite BTD’s arguments. I’m fairly sure I’d have thought to ask that there too. I guess it makes Micc 1% more likely to be scum, but that’s at the very most really.

The rest of day 3 isn’t really relevant.

Day 4

Engages with BTD for most of the day. Has to do this as scum since he wouldn’t want BTD in the lylo, but it makes sense as town too. Again, not much to get from this.

Also not going to go through day 5 much since I’ve gone through it already this day phase. I still don’t buy the ‘scum wouldn’t bus so lets lynch the most likely bus’ argument being a key part of his read, or waving it away.

[Hopkirk]

After reading around 15,000 words and writing 2700 I don't have time/energy to fully summarise key points/conclusions. I'll try to do that in the morning, but can't guarantee it.
For an update thought, I'm now leaning about 65-35 towards Micc as scum.
Still need to look through SS and Chip again, and maybe more in depth on PZ.

[Hopkirk]

17- It was intended as a joke, but it’s a fair point I suppose.

110- This would be a fair point if I hadn’t made 111 in the same sitting. Saying that North’s 83 wasn’t worth pushing doesn’t make sense though. Making a four paragraph post that early, with an overly strong defence of Cabd isn’t something you usually see in RVS, so was worth picking up on.

241- I don’t understand your problem here. A.) I said it was a strong defence of Cabd. B.) North said it was about Cheeky without mentioning Cabd. C.) I clarified it was the Cabd bit that I found suspicious, not the Cheeky bit. Consequently, I don’t see how you’re confused that I’d restate the Cabd part was what I was interested in when North hadn’t addressed it.

245- At this point Chip was a ‘scum or VI read’. I wanted to hear more from him just like you did to determine which.

284- As far as I can tell, you agree that my North read was consistently greater than my Chip read.

467- My vote was on BTD because he hadn’t answered/responded to my questions. To quote myself from the town game I played right before this one ‘I’d strongly consider voting semi-confirmed town in lylo if they didn’t answer my questions’. I consider not answering directions question to have 0 town motivation. My scumread on Cheeky decreased a bit around this time too (while the one on BTD became a full scumread), so I didn’t switch off her, but it didn’t disappear.

731- I did some rereading over the night, and North just struck me as ‘new’ rather than scum. I recognise that I tunnel that kind of play too much (I can give examples if you want), so my scumread decreased a bit on North. Similar reason for why my Cheeky read decreased before to some extent. Adjusting for a bias that I didn’t consider until I was voting someone else, and had a few days not interacting with Cheeky.



723- This is the thing I take the most issue with out of everything you’ve written here. You intentionally cut my justification for that vote out of the quote that you used. To quote it now:
‘BTD’s stuff makes more sense given the context that he missed Cheeky’s initial replace out/replace back in (in regard to me voting him over Cheeky).’
BTD had said he missed Cheeky’s replace out, and that made sense looking back at it.

UC went from 2-1 because BTD went from 1-2/3ish. I’d also raised several point on UC (that they’d ignored by the time of my vote), that I found suspicious, though admittedly not everything.

830- Nothing needed to really be said day 3. The game looked like it had a 90% chance of being over.
863- No thoughts on my rereads here? You say nothing stands out, but I had a fair amount of content.

[Hopkirk]

@Regfan: You don’t have a vote, and everyone except us have probably got a perspective on this discussion by now, so I’m not going to continue debating most of these points unless someone other than you wants to raise them, since It’s just becoming repetition.

In regard to my BTD read, I follow it up quite substantially (about 1000 words worth) outlining my problems with his initial response.

I don’t recall any scenario’s where my top scumread has subbed out. I looked through my more recent games, and it didn’t happen, so anything I could find would be from about 2-3 years ago. If that’s still useful then I’ll have a look longer back, but my playstyle has changed significantly since then.

[Hopkirk]

Here's two games that provide examples of that if i'm reading you right. In both scenarios I choose to vote someone I haven't interacted with from a pool of 3-4 potential votes, and also in both scenarios it occurs after switching off of a townie that I had been wrongly tunneling/was changing my read on.

viewtopic.php?p=9355919#p9355919
viewtopic.php?p=9356171#p9356171
In this recent example, I voted Bella after townreading her for most of the game, over a couple of other options which were similar/more significant scumreads. This was partially to get more interaction, though partially given her read on me/Serg. Note that I haven’t interacted with her a lot before said vote. The same game/my unvote at that point, is also an example of me tunnelling someone (Serg) then realizing I’m confusing new town/scum and flipping on the read (both reads were then accurate).

viewtopic.php?p=6824318#p6824318
In this example I stopped voting someone I’d scumread all game and still scumread (more evidence of how I tunnel new too much), and voted instead for Freezing, who I’d explicitly read as netural/null most of the game, and hadn’t had any back and forth with. Got nightkilled (N2) before I could finish developing that read/form a final opinion.

[Hopkirk]

Amazingly, I have time to conclude on Micc and look through SS too.

Six main points/summary of my points on Micc.
-Early read progression on Chip shifts oddly from scum to neutral. Don’t really follow the progression. After asking Chip some questions without satisfactory responses (or at least none noted), unvotes Chip in favour of not voting anyone.

-Fails to make solid reads in general for much of day 1. Other than a consistent townread on me, a shifting read on Chip, and a period of scumreading North, Micc doesn’t have many solid/justified reads until very late D1 (around the time Chip is being lynched). After that, his reads become more pronounced (Townblock of PZ/Micc/Me, Chip scumread becomes harder, North scumread enhances the following day, though that’s alignment based it’s still harder than he really pushed D1 in general).

-Early vote/attacks on Chip aren’t hard enough that they couldn’t be retracted. There was no real wagon momentum on Chip/Micc at this point.

-Thinking about the above point a bit more, Chip’s strategy of not saying anything, combined with Micc’s focus on Chip would allow them to get through the day without making enemies. If Micc didn’t expect more momentum, then this is a safe/good play for them.

-Alternatively to the above point, a lot of Micc’s posts to Chip look like he’s trying to get Chip to say/do more/develop reads.

-Chip doesn’t act to push the Chip wagon substantially. He switches to BTD despite maintaining a greater scumread on Chip. It’s surprising he doesn’t either a.) ISO chip, or b.) Ask people like me/PZ about Chip and try to persuade us to change to Chip. The Chip push in general is weaker than I first though.

-Doesn’t push UC the next day at all really, or interact with them much. Hard push for North instead.


Funny point unrelated to the game. Looking back at prior games, I’ve played with Micc once, and played in a game hosted by him (a while ago), but didn’t remember until now.

[Hopkirk]

That should be seven, not six. Anyway, on to SS.

Early game interacts heavily with Cabd/Cheeky. Doesn’t acknowledge the early Chip wagon whatsoever.

119- Explains she townread Chip, but didn’t comment on him as she wanted to see where the wagon went. This seems good, since she still let the wagon go so looks like she wanted reads developed from it.

146- Could be odd that she doesn’t push Chip after admitting she wants to hear more, but there’s lots of inactive slots at this stage.

156- I like that she’s engaging with Micc on his Chip read, though dislike she’s not engaging Chip directly at the same time.

A lot of the following posts are fluff/commenting on Cabd stuff. Reads aren’t developing since vote is on Kawso, an inactive, and she doesn’t seem to mind.

259- Pushes for Kawso again here, demonstrating she does still want it, but 107 is 150 posts ago at this point, and Kawso looks like he’s flaked. It’s a vote parked somewhere that clearly doesn’t have any value in terms of pressuring anyone, and it’s bad that she doesn’t have another scumread. Obviously getting a scumread from 2 RVS posts, and less than 50 words (From someone with less than 200 posts as well) is not a solid read.

261- Her townread on me, and what I think is her only read other than on Kawso/Chip, vanishes.

266- Which is worse with the context that she’s now asked other people why they don’t have any strong reads (while still exclusively pushing someone who looks like they’ve flaked).

Next bunch of posts are all just questions without any demonstrable reads development.

287- Gives reads list. Kawso as hard scum and BTD as netural is odd when they had similar post rates. Me/Micc leaning towards scum doesn’t make much sense since he hasn’t commented on us, or made any attempt to push us. Over three days since Kawso has posted, and SS is voting based on 2 low content RVS posts, and she hasn’t tried to push Micc or me at all. The Chip as town is the only thing that you could expect to see there from her prior posts. No idea where the Cheeky/North townleans emerge from.

As far as I can tell the list is basically ‘me and the confirmed town are town, the flaker is scum, and everyone else is in the middle but I want to make my list like that to cover up having no reads’.

353- Interested in Hopkirk/Micc/Chip interactions. This could have been useful now if she’d finished it. Mentions me/Micc later, but not Chip. First mention of Chip since the early game townread as well.

384- This is pretty explicitly related to what I said in response to 287. She put me and Micc below a complete null because we’re null after posting. That should be all of us on the same level, and if she’s interested in sorting us then she should have looked at me/Micc (though it’s plausible she was just busy and intended to do this before subbing out).

391- Concludes the Chip/Micc/Hopkirk analysis saying she didn’t see anything worth commenting on. Doesn’t update her reads either. Doesn’t make much sense.

By this point, Kawso has been gone for 7 days, and she is still voting him, and still scumreading him for what amounts to not posting. It’s beyond obvious he’s flaked, he might have actually replaced out by this point, I’m not sure without looking for the VC around here.

By point of subbing out, has no reads other than a Chip townread, and a hard scumread on someone who flaked after 2 RVS posts.


This is actually a lot worse than I remember. I’d forgotten SS was around at the start until now really, and I can see why. There’s no stances, just townreading Chip while pushing an inactive surrounded by fluff.

[Hopkirk]

Still need to look through Chip again, and look at PZ closer.
I'll busy away from about an hour's time until evening tomorrow.

[Hopkirk]

I should be able to do some stuff tonight.

[Hopkirk]

I’ve read the recent stuff before posting this time. Will respond/comment there after finishing the rereading (unless I’m interrupted by security updates which is possible).

Chip

54/6- These don’t really make sense together. Micc is town for pushing Chip, but Chip thinks there’d be two scums on his wagon (come to think of it now, not mentioning specific people and saying 2/3 is weird). Potentially reading a partner differently. Most stuff around the early RVS wagon is null since it could have been planned though.

106- Says he’s read through part of Micc’s scumgame. On the one hand, I wouldn’t expect someone to do meta on a partner so early. On the other hand, could want to know how Micc plays as scum. First option is significantly more plausible since there’s no point saying in thread if he did the second purely for information.

242- Townreads both Micc and SS. Micc one is justified somewhat, SS isn’t. The stuff about Micc designing setups still seems weird, but not scummy weird.

292- Changing Micc from top town to middle seems unnecessary if they were partners- bringing unneeded attention to it. SS still unjustified townread.

302- Says he thinks Micc ‘might be good at inserting himself into a townblock’. Most obvious thought here is that Chip tried to put Micc as town to make Micc back off, it failed, and he flipped on Micc. Seems very unlikely he’d react like that to a partner, so gives townpoints to Micc.

315- If partners, Chip sounds legitimately irritated at this point. Micc doesn’t stop voting Chip, which looks good.

A substantial number of posts follow, focused around Micc. Looking more closely at timings, Chip looks like he wants Micc to hard bus at the points where scum Micc wants to focus on other people. It seems unlikely that they’d play at right angles for as long as they did, which reflects well on Micc. That mitigates the points I made earlier about Micc signalling, unless Chip was really dense, which is far less likely.

490- Reread SS and ‘it is solid’. Don’t like that being his only comment.

514- Says he’d have PZ leaning scum if not for SS. Slightly inconsistent with earlier saying SS is mostly still null (though may have updated in 490). Doesn’t make sense that he doesn’t bring up what he dislikes about PZ.

525- ‘How am I supposed to townread you’ directed at PZ. Sounds like potential comment to partner.

Read on SS/PZ seems like a really marked change for Chip given he a.) avoids taking stances, and b.) hasn’t voted anyone. I can’t think of any immediately obvious explanations/motivations to do that except them being partners.
Stuff post the wagon on him isn’t very valuable since he probably realized he was going to die, and was being bussed, so he’d have incentive to introduce wifom there.

Conclusions: Micc less likely as mafia by a fair bit, PZ proportionally more likely.

[Hopkirk]

438- Kind of odd that he thinks there’s a lot of material, but votes on the person approximately tied for least material. I can think of three plausible explanations here though, so it’s null/playstyle difference.

524- Gives Chip multiple opportunities to not be scumread by PZ.
527- This is a pretty hard bus. I assume the vote was left out by mistake. Encourages Micc to join him on the vote. Brings legitimate reasoning. If partners, he’s decided to commit to bussing at this point. Could see the development there as a partner whose frustrated Chip hadn’t taken his get out offers. Similar to what I was saying on Micc, but the timing problems aren’t there.


581- ‘I feel like I've somehow wandered into Road to Rome.’ Sounds like more something you’d say about a partner than someone whose alignment you don’t know.

751- Unclear about his UC read at this point. By this point (D2), PZ has expressed willingness to lynch North, BTD, and Cheeky, but not UC. Obviously, that’s the people who weren’t on the wagon, but I feel there were legitimate reasons to dislike UC around this point. Reinforces the mood of ‘scum being off the wagon’.

910- Only really notable post around this time. Seems a lot more confident on Micc as town than he does today. Clearly town on Micc vs probably town on me.

Post the Chip bus, not all that much content. Just really coasts through ‘default lynches’ until this point.

I don’t like that PZ’s thoughts today seem really difficult to gauge. Micc seems to be developing thoughts, and PZ more waiting.

Currently like 80-20 PZ/Micc.

[Hopkirk]

Largely, SS/PZ is more scum due to absence of interactions rather than bad interactions. I could definitely see the bus occurring from that angle now if PZ gave up on Chip (Road to Rome comment), especially considering the Chip/SS stuff.

@Micc/1090: Could you pull those up, since they’re the strongest reason for my suspicions.

1105- I would 100% have hammered North if it got close to deadline and things continued to stall. She was at the bottom of my lynch pool, but I thought we’d win if we lynched everyone in that pool.

I liked Micc’s stuff over the last pages overall. Seems like he’s trying to solve, and seems consistent.

BTD definitely doesn’t think scum wouldn’t bus since she had Micc as her top scum for a while.


@Micc/1114: If you look at those games I linked that Regfan asked for, they (at least one of them, maybe both) also contain examples of me tunnelling a new townie hard day 1, then reversing my read to a (correct) townread afterwards. I can provide another two memorable examples off the top of my head if you want, but it’s pretty common for my reads on ‘new town’ to reverse. It was largely gut-tone based though.

Didn’t push against it since it was largely gut at that point. I also didn’t reread completely, more skimmed and recognised my initial points were pretty weak, and she seemed to be developing reads/putting effort in- and effort usually just seems townie from new players.

I don’t think I was being ‘lazy’ with my vote in 345/7. I thought North was scummier than Chip at that point.

[Hopkirk]

713- BTD-UC-Cheeky listed as most to least likely scum. PZ listed as townread. Micc/PZ townreads and BTD/Cheeky scumreads reads follow from the end of the previous day.

723- BTD goes to behind Cheeky, and UC moves to the front (after explaining the main point I had well), followed by Cheeky. North listed as leaning town (sort of by POE too).

767- Townreads on Micc and PZ listed. Cheeky/UC scumreads restated.

@Regfan: 768- Didn’t remember before, but this is mainly why I didn’t defend North. I hadn’t got to doing a reread on him until after he voted himself, and there’s no point defending someone whose resigned to the extent that they’re selfvoting.

Cosistent reads on every player. My activity was pretty low day 2 though, so I didn't get a chance to fully go through UC/BTD/ reasons I scumread UC.

[Hopkirk]

Having significant computer issues, so posts will be short until solved. Already lost a longer version of this post once.

NSG had moved more towards town for you during day 1 then? Where was that?

Spoiler: Pulling out quotes of me trying to drive a chip wagon

Why aren't yall helping to wagon the guy who planted his RVS vote on a player who is replacing out and then disappeared from the thread?

Me asking for a Chip RVS wagon.

now i've got two trs and one of them isn't cabd

This seems to imply you got a town read on Hopkirk from post 38. Can you explain that one please?

yea i thought that his questions in 38 meshed a lot with what i was thinking when i read those posts which indicates a towny thought process. it wasn't a super strong read at the time but its been strengthened by his recent posts as well

ftr my other tr at the time was chip but when i entered the game the wagon on him was pretty much the only thing happening and i wanted to see what happened with it

has your opinion on chip butty changed as his wagon fell apart? the lack of traction for the wagon meant there was less pressure than I would have liked. I'm left feeling like I don't have a read on him because of it.

Me stating my disappointment that a stronger Chip RVS wagon didn't happen.

sorry, i wasn't clear again. me voting you initially wasn't entirely serious. my vote as it stands now is where i want it to be. let's look at the sum total of your contributions this game: you threw a little fit over someone's rvs vote and then you threw a little fit again over my vote on you. i hope i'm not making the mistake of letting how much i dislike you cloud my judgment, but i don't think i am.

Well, I think ive refuted the points you made regarding the seriously serious vote and I think this post unfairly mis represents my contributions to the game thus far. Do me a favor and seriously think about my play and ask yourself what is likely to come from town/scum and why. If you decide that youre scum reading me solely because you don't like what I'm doing or how I'm doing it then back off. If you really think I'm scum bring the evidence to the table. Right now I'm trying to decide if I caught scum you pushing a bad case or if youre town that is confirmation biasing herself because she doesn't like my approach to the game.

it's hard to display in quotes how natural you sound in one game as opposed to the other

and thus why I think this argument doesn't hold water. Its pretty clear that you decided my posts look "awkward" and went into my previous games in order to find evidence that proves to yourself that its alignment indicative. As Cabd can attest to, it takes A Lot of time to make a legitimate meta argument. And if you're going out to find the evidence after you have your hypothesis then your doing it wrong.

has your opinion on chip butty changed as his wagon fell apart? the lack of traction for the wagon meant there was less pressure than I would have liked. I'm left feeling like I don't have a read on him because of it.

eh he's still a tr. i thought his response to his wagon in 56 was fairly towny. it was a lot like how i reacted to being wagoned early in my first newbie game although given his join date i'm a little less inclined to tr it than i would if he was a newbie.

i wish he would contribute more but i'm most interested in hearing btd's thoughts rn

could you expand on post 56 please? that's the post I picked out as pretty useless to make as town and questioned him further on. Is there a reason a newer player wouldn't have this type of reaction as scum? for me it doesn't seem like the kind of thing that needs to be said if he's town and as scum he would likely be using it to discourage the players on his wagon from staying on it any longer.

Trying to convince one of my town reads that his town read on chip had flawed reasoning.

i've been a little but busy but i've also been thinking a lot about this game. the more thought i give to the issue the more i think it's possible i'm reading through the thread with the goal of trying to make you scum in my mind to fit some narrative rather than objectively looking at things. for the sake of both the town and myself i think it's counterproductive for me to keep going with it, so for now i think what i'm going to do is just try to focus on other people.

Cool beans. I can work that.
UNVOTE: northsidegal

The lack of ability to build momentum on any wagons so far this game makes me want to look for scum in the lower activity players. At the same time I'm conflicted because I generally view parking a vote on a player for lack of participation as a waste of time.

Talking more about how a chip wagon never happened and what I thought it meant about the game.

No, I'm not interested in wagoning anyone who's not here. That's never productive. I kinda want to wagon you because it still bothers me that it never got traction the first time.

Let's talk about Hopkirk. He's your lowest read of the players with more than two posts. I have him moving above you because I liked a lot of things he did in his catch up. What's your read based on?

Me saying that it bothers me that Chip never got wagoned and that I'd be up for it.

VOTE: Chip butty
Well none of that moved me away from wanting to see this wagon happen. I don't like his trajectory on me. He moved me from towniest among the active slots to being null simply by not posting for a day. I thought the creater of the setup thing was a joke at first but he reemphisised it without anyone else bringing it up and I can't see why he's letting that have an impact on his read.

My understanding of his point against hopkirk is that hopkirks reads are superficial and or lack deep analysis. Not only do I disagree with that I think I could accuse Chip of that same thing. Seems like more of his reads are activity based than anything else which I see as very superficial.

Me voting Chip in hopes that other players will join.

oh man. it took cheeky two sentences to explain what I've been trying to say for three days.

Can we get an actual wagon on Chip yet? That and some catchup posting from LUV/BTD would do wonders for this game right now.

Me specifically calling out to people for a Chip wagon.

@Micc: Are you done with BTD or do you still have things to hash out with that slot?

I'm not really done or satisfied with what came out of pushing BTD, but if this is you asking whether I still want the Chip butty wagon I've been calling for all game then consider me on board.

VOTE: Chip butty

Me not hesitating to drop my BTD push in order to wagon Chip at the first sign of interest from other players.

1.) I think it's pretty obvious that over D1 my North scumread was overtaken by my Cheeky read, then BTD (after it developed), and then Chip. UC then became suspicious day 2. Reconsidered strength of my thoughts on North by skimming, but she'd already been overtaken several times at that point, and looking back was partially motivated by North being at the bottom of four potential scum.
2.) That's not what I meant. Calling for a wagon isn't equal to pushing hard. A few paragraphs on recent actions isn't a case, a couple of lines of questions to SS isn't really trying to persuade your townreads (you didn't really try and persuade me), and (though this isn't your fault and leans to null) a push is limited in what it tells us when nobody joins it.

[Hopkirk]

I’m here. Fire away

If you're not town I'll eat a steak. Absolutely nothing I can find points you to being mafia in this game.

So I'd rather you fire away cuz I don't wanna get mislynched.


Sidenote: I just discovered if you do alt+u it does the underline BBCode for you whoa

This confuses me. If you can't find anything for Micc then you must have read him in depth, or can't make that claim.
So either you haven't read me in depth, or have read me in depth but didn't post and conclusions or comments about the read.

[Hopkirk]

That's a main part of what I'm saying. You weren't on him hard enough for it to be a hard bus.

[Hopkirk]

VOTE: Papa Zito

Re 1066: I don't get the attempt to paint me as not 100% trying to get Chip lynched for the middle parts of day 1. I'll admit i wasn't ready for a hammer until about 6 posts before it happened, but to act like i wasn't tyring to get him wagoned is silly. Hard to scum read hopkirk for this since hes coming at it from the angle that that im scum, but geez ill pull out quotes of me asking for a wagon if I have to.

@Micc/1090: Could you pull those up, since they’re the strongest reason for my suspicions.

That's a main part of what I'm saying. You weren't on him hard enough for it to be a hard bus.

Are you saying a hard bus makes me town or scum here? How about a softer bus?

I feel like I've lost track of what the point you're trying to make is right now.

Options
1.) Hard bus: pretty scummy.
2.) Strong push, but not hard bus: not scummy.
3.) Looks like strong push but isn't, busses when needed: moderately scummy.

I'm saying 1 isn't the case, since it doesn't look like a hard bus, and trying to determine whether it was 2 or 3. It's currently factored into my previous overall read as like a 2.5 though, so isn't enough either way to change my conclusion.

[Hopkirk]

So your entire case is things that have been thoroughly discussed already this day phase, primarily the 'scum wouldn't bus' stuff?

[Hopkirk]

@Zito: Given you agree that bussing is advantageous, how does it follow that the softest bus is scum? If/given bussing is a good move, there’s no advantage to a soft bus over a hard bus. At best, its wifomy- but you're presenting the less effective scum choice as the most likely scum choice without explicitly acknowledging the hard bus side of it.

Also, the focus seems like a convenient tool to avoid work (which makes more sense as scum whose given up than town whose given up), and to draw attention away from you/try and weaken the case on you (since everyone seems to agree that if you discount that bus as wifomy, then you look worst). Saying everything except likelihood of bussing somewhat contradicts your earlier statement that you looked all through Micc and found nothing (why look if you believe point a to be true?) and is inherently wrong since the assumption that mafia play at least somewhat differently to town is the fundamental part of the game (especially in this setup where town have a voice after death).

[Hopkirk]

3.) The problem I have here is that ‘lets do VCA’ really isn’t the first or even last thing that sprang to my mind at the start of today- and clearly the same applies to Micc. I don’t see why it would be your first thought, why you wouldn’t say when you decided it didn’t say anything useful, or how it fit with your conclusion that the bus was the only relevant event.

‘2. Micc, who was widely townread;
3. Hopkirk, his partner;’
Here’s a problem with that: as far as I’m aware, I was townread about the same as Micc at that point. You’re engaging in revisionism here.

1.) C. The guy who claimed to scumread Chip but never voted until seeing an opportunity when B happened?
2.) It wasn't planned.
You’re saying that both it was obvious Chip was being lynched and not obvious at the same time. One implies I bussed Chip with intent for it to lead to a lynch, two implies I bussed without expecting it to lead to a lynch. One is a legitimate perspective, since I feel mine is what tipped it from a wagon to a probable lynch, but taking both stances is an illegitimate argument.

[Hopkirk]

I'd like to see the dead thread.

Also I'm super curious about The Mystery of Night Two.

Would you buy that everything went exactly according to my plan?
As Lykan said, I'd probably look better if I didn't answer/the scum topic wasn't released.

I was very surprised when UC died. I did intend to ignite there, but i also made a mistake. I was completely sure I'd targetted Papa Zito the previous night (since I'd used an RNG and distinctly remember one of his numbers coming up). Somehow I sent the wrong name (UC was one of the four people I considered picking, but the lowest chance I'd pick). I don't remember how this happened, either I got the names mixed up, or I copied the wrong name and didn't check it.

My full motivations are in the mafia topic, but one of them was that I really wanted to avoid the Cabd/Hopkirk/PZ/Micc lylo. My plan was to kill PZ, the prime Micc twice while lynching North/Cheeky/BTD/UC. I assumed people would go with the scum wouldn't bus logic, and I wanted to keep the arguments in thread going. Some reasons to get rid of PZ include that he seemed really town, and didn't have a stated townread on me (which is why I wanted him to go over Micc), him dying didn't affect when lylo would be, I could use his death for general wifom/to test if Cabd was on him, and I could get rid of without getting rid of a town v town conflict (eg, I wanted BTD/UC to continue fighting since they seemed like the two tougher lynches to push through).

[Hopkirk]

Oh yeah, before doing the N2 ignite I asked Lycan what he’d do if there was an empty slot during the night (randomise action) if 1.) he would extend deadline until Cheeky could be replaced (no), and 2.) If he could confirm in thread what he’d do if there was an empty slot (which he wouldn’t).
This almost made me reconsider killing since I thought bringing it up might look a little scummy (correctly, given BTD’s reaction to Micc), but I decided killing PZ was still worth it in the end.

Obviously, I pushed UC without realizing I had her primed. Staying off the wagons of confirmed towns was one reason for that.
Assigned a low probability to targeting Cabd during the night.
I found it funny Regfan said 'There's no way Hopkirk would have targetted PZ n1', given I’d been 100% sure that I had (to the extent I didn’t see any reason to check).

[Hopkirk]

Dead Thread
Mod PT
Mafia thread, maybe

Are we getting access to these?

[Hopkirk]

The mod QT/night actions is the main thing I wanted to see.

[Hopkirk]

I don’t think there was any point during the game where I thought to myself that there’d been a problem with the modding.

Also hopkirk was pretty good too. Despite what he said ITT he ignited nearly a full day before asking about Cheekyteeky.

Oh right, I meant before finalising rather than before doing, but, the ignite had nothing to do with Cheeky. I asked about Cheeky the same time as I submitted the ignite since I was wondering if she was/why she wasn’t being replaced, but I didn’t think the response was atypical.