In post 213, Jamiet99uk wrote:In post 208, lucca261 wrote:let me get back in the game by making a quick "what I think of each player":
Jamie: yeah, I'm kinda of torn about his slot. he's using the newbie card a lot, more that I would like. when I was a newbie, the last thing I wanted was to people to point I was a newbie. he's using subtle language to point how he is a new player since the start, on things like 43, 71 and 128. and the mix of an apologetic approach, seen on 43, with an agressive approach, seen on the rest of his posts, especially against Aubrey, concerns me, and makes me think that the tone on 43 was the tone of a concerned player, that was using the newbie card to at least get more air, when he had five votes against him.
on the other hand, I think that the things he is questioning are ok, and I liked his response to me about why he scumreads me. I also don't think that a player that seems so eager to fit in with the meta would be such an eager scum player, with lot of posts and questions. so right now, I would say that the slot is on the complete middle to me.
question: what do you think of Maki vote/unvote on awoo?
Good question. Maki's vote on Awoo wasn't very well explained. It seemed to just be a vote because Maki thought Awoo's comment to me was a bit shitty, rather than necessarily scummy. So I wasn't that surprised when Maki was unvoted - didn't appear a very sincere vote in the first place.
In post 222, northsidegal wrote:it didn't seem like you were around, so i thought i'd use my vote a bit more productively. like i said, pretty happy with the outcome of that. you say that explicitly saying your vote is a reaction test defeats the purpose (and i agree), but did cheeky really do that? assuming we're both talking about 72, all she said was "serious omgus vote". you could take it that any vote that explicitly announces omgus isn't serious, but i would say it could also be used as just a term for voting the person who just voted you. you could just ignore the vote, but like i said in 171, choosing not to react is still a reaction in itself. not sure i get your point on "lack of pressure to talk". someone voting you usually necessitates some kind of answer. if you're trying to make the point that cheeky's lack of follow-up questions makes the vote useless, i'm not sure i agree. i guess a big problem i have with you is this interaction here:Spoiler:
you're not being forthcoming here, and i don't think it shows town-motivation. it's not always bad to secretive with your reads or the reasons, but here you make it seem as if you know for a fact that cheeky is scum and you don't need any further evidence or reactions. why not elaborate on why you scumread cheeky? why would you not want a response from voting someone? if you believe cheeky is scum then certainly you would want to convince other people, so why be so quiet in your confidence? the reason i would suspect from your meta is because you plan to point out all the reasons later, without giving scum a chance to change their behavior mid-day, but i haven't really seen that yet. 208 doesn't entirely satisfy that for me, so unless there's something spectacular later i think i'll keep my eye on you.
In post 308, Jamiet99uk wrote:Having re-read Awoo I no longer scumread him (not her, sorry it was the female picture). Awoo seems to be looking carefully at people's reactions which is good scumhunting play. I particularly agree with this response to Lucca261. It's egregiously scummy to want to know what people think you would do or say as scum (so you can later avoid doing or saying things that will get you scumread).
VOTE: UNVOTE until I can properly reread Lucca.
In post 326, Jamiet99uk wrote:Lucca261 has made 13 posts.
First was a shitphase joke vote on CommKnight. Second was his "serious vote" schtick on Cheeky. Some sort of rxn test, we suppose, but in the conversation in 113 and 117 he says it wasn't and he apparently knew Cheeky was scum for sure, that early (without explanation).
Post 139 doesn't know how anyone can have strong reads (and yet 22 posts before that he was sure of his scumread on Cheeky).
Up to that point - pretty hedgy and scummy.
Then from 208 onwards we get some more detailed, less abrasive posts from Lucca which seem more inquisitive and involved. His questioning of me seems reasonable - and he finally explains his early push on Cheeky.
@Lucca: Why did it take until 203 to explain why you scumread Cheeky on 59?
In post 357, Jamiet99uk wrote:Also, Lucca, please give some commentary on why you said in Post 139 that you were amazed anyone had any reads, and yet before that you'd been super-sure of your scumread on Cheeky. Tell us about that apparent inconsistency please?
overall, I don't get how people can have this crazy readlists so quickly. this game has been mostly theory, and abrasiveness. I don't see much from any player on any alignment, except for maybe scum!cheeky and town!aubrey. how can someone have these full readlists?
In post 379, Flavor Leaf wrote:Solid. I know where I want to go.
VOTE: Lucca
This slot is fabricating and fluffing all over the place. Pushing meh content onto the lurkers, and is just really spouting stuff. I see a lot of people town read players like these, a la Brian Skies. It’s rather strong because even when they are pressured they easily can brush it off and hide behind their wall posts, which people generally want to town read, but are extremely easy to fake as scum in practice. I can link a giant wall post I’ve made as scum before, multiple, but I have one in mind. Scum typically like to fantasize about potential things, so they can make a case based on all hypotheticals, which helps “explain” why certain people are scum. Wall posts also help scum keep track of their reads and whatnot, and they can just build their fabricated trajectories on top of each other, like a waffle, where some pockets have less syrup in them, but others overflow. You can see the emptier, less soggy parts of the waffle, and then put the syrup where it’s needed.
fabricating and fluffing all over the place
Pushing meh content onto the lurkers
In post 382, Flavor Leaf wrote:Fair enough.
I don’t like Maki’s and Lucca’s back and forth a few pages back. Something about it’s weird to me.
The whole both could be scum/one of them likely is scum seems like theatre bailing each other out, and allowing both onto multiple mislynches with reasoning, while distancing away from each other.
In post 379, Flavor Leaf wrote:Scum typically like to fantasize about potential things, so they can make a case based on all hypotheticals, which helps “explain” why certain people are scum.
In post 405, Epic Fial wrote:Maybe you can tell us why you like naked votes but not naked reads? Another player has replaced in since my last post. Seems like a backward noob. One who might help crack the case if his heart is pure. Now how do you feel about that slot?
In post 456, Flavor Leaf wrote:In post 451, lucca261 wrote:regardless, I'd say the entrance was right in the middle of the town-scum spectrum. the towny part is: he comes guns-blazing, pushing people who weren't pressured, commentating on stuff that wasn't commentated, with clear reads. that said, his case on me was all relative, cluttered with buzzwords not related to my posts, and a major part of it is theory talk. I'd also like to know where my case based only on hypotheticals is.
This is what most interested me in the response. I haven't completely read the thread here, not gonna lie. It was just skim reads and what caught my eye on the initial read through.
This being said, what buzzwords did I clutter my posts with? This is very interesting use of words, because I don't believe I used buzz words. In fact, my description of that playstyle even shocked someone on thinking the playstyle was foolproof.
I even brought up an interaction between you and another player that felt really off to me, which you failed to bring up.
All this being said, this is yet another fluffy and fabricated read because you put yourself in a perfect position to either A) town read me if I accept your response and move on, or B) Scum read me if I choose to push you further.
Also, I don't really care where you vote is/was. You pushed Cheeky. Cheeky is the highest poster you stated, correct? Easy way to go. I cared more for the underlying pushes you've been making on other players, where you are setting yourself for that tree branch of yours to grow the way you want/need it to. This is how the majority of your reads are. Open ended, even if it's a "strong read", you allow yourself to go either way, like you are playing a popularity game, not looking for scum.
In post 584, Maki Harukawa wrote:northsidega
Lalendra
Awoo Jamiet99uk
Aubrey
Chisa Yukizome CheekyTeeky lucca261
Flavor Leaf Epic Fial
Quick CommKnight
is where I'm at atm
In post 671, Lalendra wrote:What makes you want to lynch me over Maki, since you say we both "jumped on" the Quick wagon?
In post 932, Lalendra wrote:In post 919, Lalendra wrote:I think Comm is right, yesterday we got pretty distracted by Comm v Quick and even if there is scum there, we still have 2 others to find. I like where his head is at, and my confidence was shaken by a recent resounding loss, so I'll sheep this.
VOTE: lucca
You can infer and misrep all you want but I literally stated my reasons prior to voting you. Whether you agree with them or not is irrelevant, they are there.
In post 967, Lalendra wrote:In post 965, Maki Harukawa wrote:better figure out fast lovely
I find this response interesting. No defensiveness at all. Hm.
@Comm - It's good to know I'm not the only one who thinks this way. Though I find it interesting that I am scumread a lot more for it than Comm appears to be. Guess I have to be more aggressively confident.
In post 1012, Flavor Leaf wrote:Can you raise me up off neutral? It’ll help me see you as townie.
In post 1126, Aubrey wrote:In post 1112, lucca261 wrote:Aubrey and Maki are two of the towniest slots on the game. not happening.In post 1112, lucca261 wrote:not sure if I like Aubrey posts on the start of this page, but we got to start to build townreads and he's currently voting with me so I'll let this pass.
.
This feels like two separate reads..."Aubrey, one of the towniest slots / Well he's currently voting alongside me and we gotta start somewhere"
--
Disregarding my 1101, why is everyone so bothered of me asking them to start helping to generate wagons vs. individualized votes we've mainly been seeing today? I'm not asking people to abandon their suspicions, but rather asking them to move on to the next suspicion with their vote so that we can generate wagons, see how they build and feel, and see where they take us for wagon analysis later on. If everyone stays on their individualized vote, all we will likely get is a panic or rushed shift of votes close to days end due to stubbornness. Maybe some wagons would appear before then, but why not try and accelerate that process, especially after yesterdays no lynch?