this i agree with, though. you should probably read the thread - it's not very long.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 entire arguement is countered by the real life fact that i was just kinda busy and didn't have too much time to type up that massive post. truthfully, i haven't really been able to follow hopkirk's scumread on you. it didn't play any role in the timing of my post.In post 449, CheekyTeeky wrote: 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.
i'm fairly confident i pointed out a few cases where you're lying in the big post i made. there comes a point in someone else's interpretation of something where it goes beyond simply being mistaken or forced reasoning and starts becoming lying. i believe that's the case with some of your posts regarding me.And then we have this:
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.In post 404, northsidegal wrote: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.
So far I only have NSG in my lynch pool. I need to relook at Chip, SS and BTD.
Sorry to be a pain, could you please quote specifically where I'm lying? Why are you AtEing my push on you? I'm not afraid to be wrong and am still on good terms with people I play with/scumread.In post 451, northsidegal wrote:i'm fairly confident i pointed out a few cases where you're lying in the big post i made. there comes a point in someone else's interpretation of something where it goes beyond simply being mistaken or forced reasoning and starts becoming lying. i believe that's the case with some of your posts regarding me.
by the way, this game is going to be pretty awkward if we're both town. luckily, i don't think that's the case.
sure! it wasn't meant to be an appeal to emotion, i was just imagining the scenario where both of us get lynched and we both flip town. in this setup specifically i would think it'd be awkward because we'd both still be there to talk as stumps. i wasn't trying to say that we'd be enemies or anything afterwards.In post 452, CheekyTeeky wrote:Sorry to be a pain, could you please quote specifically where I'm lying? Why are you AtEing my push on you? I'm not afraid to be wrong and am still on good terms with people I play with/scumread.In post 451, northsidegal wrote:i'm fairly confident i pointed out a few cases where you're lying in the big post i made. there comes a point in someone else's interpretation of something where it goes beyond simply being mistaken or forced reasoning and starts becoming lying. i believe that's the case with some of your posts regarding me.
by the way, this game is going to be pretty awkward if we're both town. luckily, i don't think that's the case.
I can buy this but it doesn't explain why you didn't vote me earlier. As you proved with Micc, you were happy to cast votes without a wall post, so why not just cast one on me without the elaborate justification? I'm pretty sure people were assuming you were scum reading me so it's not like you had to worry about just voting me earlier as the justification was implied.In post 451, northsidegal wrote:this entire arguement is countered by the real life fact that i was just kinda busy and didn't have too much time to type up that massive post. truthfully, i haven't really been able to follow hopkirk's scumread on you. it didn't play any role in the timing of my post.
i was waning on how to interpret you this game, and it was only after your 289 that i made up my mind on voting you. i wanted to vote you at the same time that i gave my whole explanation because i didn't want to be one of those people that promises explanation later and never gives it. in the meantime between that i was a little bit busy in real life, but also chip, hopkirk and micc all had their conversation and luv replaced in. i didn't want to distract from the discussion there because i thought there was more valuable or revealing information that was being posted that could have been stopped short if i came in with my post, and also i was waiting to see what luv would make of the game. i don't feel the need for any sort of "justificaton" for the timing of the vote, just the justification on why the vote.In post 455, CheekyTeeky wrote:I can buy this but it doesn't explain why you didn't vote me earlier. As you proved with Micc, you were happy to cast votes without a wall post, so why not just cast one on me without the elaborate justification? I'm pretty sure people were assuming you were scum reading me so it's not like you had to worry about just voting me earlier as the justification was implied.In post 451, northsidegal wrote:this entire arguement is countered by the real life fact that i was just kinda busy and didn't have too much time to type up that massive post. truthfully, i haven't really been able to follow hopkirk's scumread on you. it didn't play any role in the timing of my post.
Hi BTD, your playstyle strikes me as very cautious. I'm not aware of your meta, however I think your style is on the opposite end of the conservative spectrum to mine. I don't know who is scum or not so I push (perhaps too aggressively) to find out. If I were casting shade I would just highlight my suspicion and move on. I play by getting reactions because they're easier for me to read. As was discussed around the time of my Cabd push, I predicted one logical reaction as an out for Cabd. I also said that I THOUGHT it was a scum slip. This is another argument that attacks my scum hunting style instead of trying to figure out my intent. Would it not make sense for scum to be a little more subtle in their scumhunting? If Cabd had not claimed, I admit I most likely would have death tunneled him until he was lynched. If he flipped vanilla town that would've guaranteed my lynch next phase. I don't see these actions coming from scum who would care more about self-preservation. Of course this could all be loaded with WIFOM and I am biased because I know my own style.In post 383, BTD6_maker wrote:This is why this suggests that CheekyTeeky is looking to cast shade on Cabd more than a genuine scumread. Scum are more likely to try to point out contradictions. If scum can make an honest mistake look like a slip, this furthers their goals. Indeed, they are perhaps slightly less likely than Town to refer to an honest mistake as simply an honest mistake (unless, of course, their partner made it, and Cabd is Town). This leads me to a very weak scumread on CheekyTeeky.
In post 421, BTD6_maker wrote: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 don't understand how these quotes line up. In one you say you don't want a state of apathy, in the next you say you've only skimmed the game and you ask, for the second time (not quoted part) if anyone has something for you to look at. To me this is asking for direction, when town don't want a state of apathy, they are proactive. You can't fear apathy and yet skim read the game asking for direction, that is very contridictory in intent. The only way I can see this lining up is if you're scum concerned about looking like you care about the game state and not wanting to give away too much with stronger reads or pushes, but looking for someone else's opinions to ride on to divert any blame from yourself.In post 424, BTD6_maker wrote:I have skimmed the game.In post 422, Micc wrote:Let's start with these:
Have you read the game?
Who do you want lynched today?
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.
This is a weird question. I can't put my finger on it just yet but I'll probably come back to this. Something about asking about bussing rather than all the other possible responses to Hopkirk.In post 428, BTD6_maker wrote:Also, what makes my scumread on Cheeky more likely to be a bus than any other scumread?
Honestly I don't know what to think about Papa. In regards to the votes on BTD6:In post 458, northsidegal wrote:thoughts on btd6 and zito's entrances and the votes on btd6?
I like this as town reasoning. I follow it and can agree with the points (apart from bussing lol)In post 425, Hopkirk wrote: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.
Because I agree with Hopkirk's points, I can't criticise micc for this. It's almost too opportunistic for it to come from calculated scum intent. Also BTD pointed out his prior scum read on him before the vote somewhere on page 18.
Don't know what to make of this just yet. Need more from Papa.In post 438, Papa Zito wrote:Aight I read the things. This game is surprisingly dense.
Cabd is a big fat liar and I wanna see my file. Where do I send my FOIA request.
VOTE: BTD6
More what.In post 462, CheekyTeeky wrote:Don't know what to make of this just yet. Need more from Papa.
More content thanIn post 463, Papa Zito wrote:More what.In post 462, CheekyTeeky wrote:Don't know what to make of this just yet. Need more from Papa.
Like you read things but what do you think about it all? Did you get any reads? Why are you voting BTD6_MAKER? What made him scummy to you?In post 438, Papa Zito wrote:Aight I read the things. This game is surprisingly dense.[snip]
VOTE: BTD6
Because scum benefits more from a no lynch/low activity. Also because hedging is opportunistic, but that's been covered.In post 428, BTD6_maker wrote:Why do you think my entrance is more likely to come from scum than Town?In post 425, Hopkirk wrote: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.
Also, what makes my scumread on Cheeky more likely to be a bus than any other scumread?
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.In post 430, BTD6_maker wrote: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.In post 425, Hopkirk wrote: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 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 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).In post 437, BTD6_maker wrote: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.In post 431, Micc wrote: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.
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.
I don't find this assessment to be accurate.In post 449, CheekyTeeky wrote: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:
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.In post 404, northsidegal wrote: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.
So far I only have NSG in my lynch pool. I need to relook at Chip, SS and BTD.
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.In post 450, northsidegal wrote: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.
this i agree with, though. you should probably read the thread - it's not very long.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.
also, welcome back i suppose to cheeky.
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?In post 468, Hopkirk wrote:@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 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.In post 471, CheekyTeeky wrote: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?In post 468, Hopkirk wrote:@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.
yeah see this is a much better post than complainingIn post 464, CheekyTeeky wrote:Like you read things but what do you think about it all? Did you get any reads? Why are you voting BTD6_MAKER? What made him scummy to you?
Complaining? I said I need more...like more information to make a conclusion. I didn't say omg why is Zito not posting more game content. That's a pretty strong reaction to a pretty neutral statement. Prefacing your post like that makes withholding your read seem more scummy than I'd otherwise find it.In post 473, Papa Zito wrote:yeah see this is a much better post than complainingIn post 464, CheekyTeeky wrote:Like you read things but what do you think about it all? Did you get any reads? Why are you voting BTD6_MAKER? What made him scummy to you?
I do have reads yes and unlike Friend BTD6 I had no trouble getting strong reads.
I'm voting him for reasons I don't want to get into at this time.