Micro 745: Beyond Death [Endgame]

[northsidegal]

alright then! i've been meaning to get around to this for a while but i've been putting it off. here it is.
VOTE: cheeky

cheeky never responded to 144.

I didn't see anything specific you wanted me to respond to, and understood that you were just providing your perspective. You said that I admitted that my case was forced, which I didn't. I said OK it seems forced to summarise your key point in the previous post. I then went on to explain why it could possibly seem forced to others looking in, during the breaking out of RVS stage. I think it would make sense for scum to point out strange things without really scumhunting. I don't see you scum hunting. I just see a 180 on your RVS stance of voting people to get reads to now just pointing out things that seem strange...but not scummy...and you can't even form an opinion on each player when everyone has provided content. How hard is it to rank players from scummy to least scummy? It's probably difficult for you because you're not actually scum hunting or coming up with helpful lines of enquiry against others. Pushes help town gather info. Providing a wishy washy opinion (x seems strange) of others scum hunting does not help us sort slots imo.

basically, this post seems disingenuous to me. i'm not cheeky so i can't know what she was thinking when she wrote 93, but what she said in 93 and what she explained in 289 just don't match up. here's 93 for reference (bolding is me):

Ok so it feels forced

, but breaking out of RVS requires discussion (not just complaining about it eh Micc), I bring up thoughts and opinions to stimulate such and make reads based on the points.

Sometimes the points are useless or feel forced

because I have almost nothing to work wot to try and make something. I don't believe my itention looked like a way to create a Cabd wagon, particularly when I announced the intention to move my vote after some back and forth. And also after the discussion with sobo where I said I use my vote to get info rather than as an accusation at this stage... so I don't know why everyone is getting so precious about Cabd?

in 289 cheeky claims that "ok so it feels forced" was simply a summary of the points i was making in 144, but it doesn't read that way at all. there's no "so you think it feels forced" or "so i could see how it looks forced" - it's just plain and simple "it feels forced". in 289 she says that she explained how it could feel forced to someone else, but again it doesn't read that way at all. it's simply "sometimes the points are useless or feel forced" with the admission that she's sometimes cerating something from nothing.

if you'll look back again at 289, you'll notice that, in a post meant to be responding to 144, immediately after the three sentences that deal with what i said in 144, cheeky completely changes track to an accusation against me. there's nothing inherently scummy about this, but i believe that viewed in the context of what that post was meant to be it's revealing of ulterior motives. this brings me to my next point, which is that i can plausibly read cheeky's posts as scum searching for false reasons and lying in order to keep a wagon going on me and keep pressure off of herself.

take a look back at 140, what originally started this line of conversation:

Spoiler:

You were very awkward breaking out of RVS. Your RVS vote on micc was straight up bad, don't care if it was a reaction test. You presented a scum interpretation of my Cabd push, but denied you thought I was scummy. Being pro-town != not scum. You seem to be playing it safe, you tried to stick your neck out with me but quickly withdrew when you saw your points were defeated by logic. I'd have to assume that you hadn't read the entire thread before your push on me, for the illogical arguments to make sense. I don't believe that to be true as I've assumed an attentive, thoughtul player image of you.

I do want to vote you but I don't like how quickly your wagon is building up so I'll reassess shortly.

i simply don't believe the reasons in this post are genuine. not only are they somewhat generic or general "you're scum" arguments to make (being awkward in rvs and hedging bets with regards to reads), they're just not true. i can't be the judge of how i looked during rvs but certainly compared to the conversation had about voting empty slots, anyone would look less awkward. additionally, i addressed the "being illogical" argument in 144 but i'll say it again. this:

You seem to be playing it safe, you tried to stick your neck out with me but quickly withdrew when you saw your points were defeated by logic. I'd have to assume that you hadn't read the entire thread before your push on me, for the illogical arguments to make sense.

is patently false. nowhere when pointing out what i viewed as strange behavior did i make an illogical argument and nowhere was it defeated by logic.

going back to post 289 and what i was saying at the beginning of this point, cheeky transitions straight from responding to me to making accusations about my lack of scumhunting. they doesn't feel genuine, and that's mostly because of the context in which they were made - strange that in a post meant to be responding to another specific post, cheeky starts making general arguments about my scumminess. i think it's plausible to read that as a nervous cheeky trying to deflect attention back onto me.

i think that's everything i was thinking of for now but i'll be around for a while. interested to hear other people's thoughts on this.

[Micc]

cheeky I don't understand what your problem with hopkirk is. He clearly had northsidegal as a larger scum read than you. That's why he made a 5 post case on northsidegal and voted her instead of making a 5 post case on you and voting you. He only switched to you after you called him out on things that are explicitly not true and then refused to engage further with him when he tried to explain why you were wrong.

predit: well I didn't read that and I have to go back to work

[CheekyTeeky]

Oh good a proper case from NSG. I've already responded to those points so she's entitled to sum it all up from her perspective OMGUS style.

Micc I know I was wrong. Let me do my thing.

[Micc]

where'd you respond to northsidegal's points? I'm admittedly trying to understand where each of you are coming from on this one and I don't see it.

With regards to Hopkirk, what thing is there to do? You can't blatantly misrepresent what someone's saying then refuse to engage with them when they take issue. There's no master plan buried deep down in that.

Northsidegal, can you try and summarize your case against cheeky in three sentences or less? I get bits and pieces of 400 but im having trouble seeing how it all comes together to make cheeky scum.

[northsidegal]

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.

[CheekyTeeky]

Yes I'm deflecting attention away from myself by rubbing people the wrong way. I'm not worried if I'm lynched because my conf. town voice gets to haunt you ^^

Micc, I can do what I like.

[CheekyTeeky]

I think doubt is getting close to zero on NSG. More eloquent thoughts later.

[Micc]

Well I guess ill just sit here and wait to be enlightened.

[Lil Uzi Vert]

@Mod: I need to replace out for personal reasons. Sorry!

[Cabd]

...

[CheekyTeeky]

@Mod I need to replace out also. Apologies

[Micc]

well that's unfortunate

[Chip Butty]

Prodge: Sorry, I've been experiencing eyestrain and probably won't post much in any of my games in the next 24 hours at least. We're still waiting to get something out of the Kawso-Uzi slot anyway, and BTD6 hasn't said all that much yet. Yes, unfortunate that CT had to replace out at this point. Will be interesting to see what someone else will make of that slot and the fight with NSG...

[Chip Butty]

well that's unfortunate

LOL, if i made that comment you'd be throwing it in my face and demanding to know what pro-town content it had.

[Micc]

Do you want me to give you room engage with other players or not? I'm making a conscious effort to let you do the things you say you want to do. Yet these snarky posts about how I'm treating you unfairly keep coming out of nowhere.

I'm sorry that I scum read you and that pressuring scumreads through wagons is how I play the game. If I thought being unnecessarily obtuse was evidence of Cheeky being scum I'd be pressuring and calling for a wagon on her. But I don't so I'm not.

[Lycanfire]

VC 1.4

All I see are clouds.

Leading Wagon:
northsidegal (2) - TheThawClown, CheekyTeeky
CheekyTeeky (2) - Hopkirk, northsidegal

TheThawClown (1) - Sobolev Space
Chip Butty (1) - Micc
Micc (1) - Cabd


Not Voting: BTD6_maker, Chip Butty

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

Day 1 will end in (expired on 2017-10-29 19:07:10)

Mod notes:
TheThawClown replaces Lil Uzi Vert.
I am searching for a replacement for CheekyTeeky.
Sobolev Space has requested replacement.
I am searching for a replacement for Sobolev Space.
The deadline has been extended by 7 days.

[northsidegal]

oh man, why did this have to happen now?

[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.

[Chip Butty]

Back on the case. Hope to be posting in 8-10 hours.

[Micc]

Well, I knew the nature of the setup was prone to creating apathy, but damn we can't even get past day 1...

[BTD6_maker]

CheekyTeeky has not responded much to my post, other than to say that my reasoning is similar to Northsidegal's.

The replace outs are unfortunate. It would be interesting to see what their replacement has to say about that post.

I hope that this does not become like Open 642. That was far too inactive and apathetic. It was great for me, because I was scum and the apathy led to two No Lynches, but of course I hope this game doesn't turn out like that.

I will be free in a few hours. If anyone has any specific questions, I will be able to answer them then.

[Micc]

Let's start with these:

Have you read the game?
Who do you want lynched today?

[Chip Butty]

Sorry. Am trying not to v/la or replace out but might have to. I posted a bit in one of my other games but rhen my eyes got sore again so i didn't push it. Looks like we're still waiting for replacements but i don't see why the game has to stall. Surely you all have questions for each other?

[BTD6_maker]

Let's start with these:

Have you read the game?
Who do you want lynched today?

I have skimmed the game.

I cannot say I want any one person lynched at the moment. My reads are still very weak and flexible. I will be able to give a better answer later today, perhaps. I do have a very weak scumread on the CheekyTeeky slot, but that slot is being replaced and I will have to read the replacement.