Micro 745: Beyond Death [Endgame]
- northsidegal
-
northsidegal Survivor
- northsidegal
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 11587
- Joined: August 23, 2017
- northsidegal
-
northsidegal Survivor
- northsidegal
- northsidegal
-
northsidegal Survivor
- northsidegal
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 11587
- Joined: August 23, 2017
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?In post 29, Micc wrote: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.- northsidegal
-
northsidegal Survivor
- northsidegal
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 11587
- Joined: August 23, 2017
- northsidegal
-
northsidegal Survivor
- northsidegal
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 11587
- Joined: August 23, 2017
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.In post 24, Micc wrote:Its purpose is to end as quickly as possible. Building cases seems like a much better way to find scum than cracking witty jokes.- northsidegal
-
northsidegal Survivor
- northsidegal
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 11587
- Joined: August 23, 2017
hi cabd!
people always say that during rvs scum will either sheep someone else's vote to try to blend in or will not put a vote at all to avoid drawing attention to themselves, but i don't think that's the case here with cabd. not reading the whole game as an excuse is a bit weird when it's only two pages but i still wouldn't say that not voting is suspicious.
by the way, i haven't played or read a game with this setup yet. anything important i should know beyond the basics of what the roles do?- northsidegal
-
northsidegal Survivor
- northsidegal
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 11587
- Joined: August 23, 2017
- northsidegal
-
northsidegal Survivor
- northsidegal
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 11587
- Joined: August 23, 2017
i think micc made it pretty clear that he wants to get out of rvs as soon as possible.Hopkirk wrote:
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.In post 23, Chip Butty wrote: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?
isn't there only one doctor / firefighter?In post 50, Cabd wrote:The setup isn't anything too complex, I will note we will NOT get flips night one; and no-lynching in this setup is almost always the wrong move.
The two "self-docs" here should be treated somewhat like you would bulletproofs in the matrix 6 setup, with the note that them claiming early like the matrix 6 BP strat is a bad idea.- northsidegal
-
northsidegal Survivor
- northsidegal
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 11587
- Joined: August 23, 2017
- northsidegal
-
northsidegal Survivor
- northsidegal
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 11587
- Joined: August 23, 2017
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.In post 65, Micc wrote:So who of Cheekyteeky, Micc, and nothsidegal is most likely to be scum on your wagon?- northsidegal
-
northsidegal Survivor
- northsidegal
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 11587
- Joined: August 23, 2017
but it wasn't really that cabd made a specific point of not voting, it was only after being questioned by ss that he specifically mentioned not wanting to vote. i think at that point it would've been more suspicious to place an rvs vote than to double down on not voting. i guess my whole point here is that it's nai. for what it's worth i think most of the pressure against cabd feels artificial, like people are trying to find reasons to pressure or vote him.In post 58, BTD6_maker wrote: Cabd raises some interesting points. It is certainly true that scum generally want to look useful but stay under the radar. This could indeed be accomplished by sheeping, or by posting without votes (as Northsidegal mentioned). However, one thing that is not conducive to that is to make a point about not voting, which draws attention to it.- northsidegal
-
northsidegal Survivor
- northsidegal
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 11587
- Joined: August 23, 2017
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:
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.- northsidegal
-
northsidegal Survivor
- northsidegal
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 11587
- Joined: August 23, 2017
rude!! we're still sort of in rvs so i don't feel bad about this!In post 82, Micc wrote:
You haven't really done anything interesting at this point so that's where I'm at.In post 76, Cabd wrote:Oh are we done. Okay. Let's talk about how micc just skipped over my entrence entirely?
I guess we will just have to wait and see what Chip says Chip meant instead of what northsidegal thinks Chip meant.In post 78, northsidegal wrote:
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.In post 65, Micc wrote:So who of Cheekyteeky, Micc, and nothsidegal is most likely to be scum on your wagon?
VOTE: micc- northsidegal
-
northsidegal Survivor
- northsidegal
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 11587
- Joined: August 23, 2017
which one is your strat spec post?In post 86, CheekyTeeky wrote:
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.In post 83, northsidegal wrote: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.
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?
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.- northsidegal
-
northsidegal Survivor
- northsidegal
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 11587
- Joined: August 23, 2017
believe it or not i've already been in the process of reading that game and i've gotten a bit through day one, i just haven't had the time to read through it all. i guess i should prioritize it more, it'd be useful for this game.
- northsidegal
-
northsidegal Survivor
- northsidegal
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 11587
- Joined: August 23, 2017
okay, that's reasonable on both the explanation and the plan (although i suspect we might be biased being newbies). sorry about missing the strategy post. also, i hope it doesn't come off like i'm hard defending cabd, it's just to me a lot of the pressure on cabd doesn't make sense, so i feel like it's useful to point that out.In post 93, CheekyTeeky wrote:
Here NSG.In post 63, CheekyTeeky wrote: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.
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?
hmm, sounds like a good idea. maybe i should take some notes whenever i'm reading through a game.In post 92, Cabd wrote: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.- northsidegal
-
northsidegal Survivor
- northsidegal
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 11587
- Joined: August 23, 2017
- northsidegal
-
northsidegal Survivor
- northsidegal
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 11587
- Joined: August 23, 2017
i think you feel mechanical in your responses when you say something like this and i think you reacted poorly to my vote. i took a really quick look through your posts in another game where you were town and it seemed like you were talking a lot more naturally. i mean, your only response to me saying my vote on you is serious is gameplay advice? nothing questioning why it's serious now, nothing pressing me for making a strangely timed rvs vote? even if you believed i was reaction testing you i think this is still a strange response.In post 102, Micc wrote:I think if youre serious about your vote you should be stating a case to convince the other players in the game to join you in forming a wagon.
my random vote on you was actually random. when i said it was serious it was just a reaction test, but now it's seriously serious (seriously!).
do you have a scum game of yours that you'd like to point me towards?- northsidegal
-
northsidegal Survivor
- northsidegal
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 11587
- Joined: August 23, 2017
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.In post 111, Hopkirk wrote:This is an overly strong defense of Cabd given the lack of real pressure that I can see.- northsidegal
-
northsidegal Survivor
- northsidegal
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 11587
- Joined: August 23, 2017
what about me this game seems to you to show an anti-town motivation or a playstyle difference that would indicate i'm scum?In post 108, CheekyTeeky wrote:
I think you may have unvoted scum, to vote scum.In post 107, Kawso wrote:UNVOTE: Hopkirk
VOTE: north
I'm afraid the random vote - reaction test - serious vote just seems scrambling almost- northsidegal
-
northsidegal Survivor
- northsidegal
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 11587
- Joined: August 23, 2017
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.In post 115, Hopkirk wrote:
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.In post 113, northsidegal wrote:
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.In post 111, Hopkirk wrote:This is an overly strong defense of Cabd given the lack of real pressure that I can see.
Also people don't seem 'very odd' moreso than usual at this stage to me.- northsidegal
-
northsidegal Survivor
- northsidegal
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 11587
- Joined: August 23, 2017
that's exactly what i was saying there - i don't see the scum purpose in forcing suspicion onto cabd so i wasn't saying it was scummy, but it just seemed strange enough that i felt i should point it out.In post 117, Sobolev Space wrote:
why do you think scum!cheeky would drum up this big phony post about how cabd could be scum only to backtrack on it 4 posts later? it didn't seem to me like cheeky's intent there was to start a wagonIn post 83, northsidegal wrote: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.- northsidegal
-
northsidegal Survivor
- northsidegal
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 11587
- Joined: August 23, 2017
i'm interested in cheeky's reasoning, kawso's vote seemed questionable and that slot hasn't contributed much and hopkirk might have misunderstood my point but still might be voting me anyways. i'll admit that it was poor play to vote micc like i did but i'm not sure the other reactions are warranted. of course, that could just be my failure to see things from other people's point of view.In post 124, Sobolev Space wrote:what do you think about the pressure on you from kawso + hopkirk + cheeky, north?
is this responding to a speficic post?In post 125, Cabd wrote:I will say that given the setup; claims don't mean almost anything, in that the "doctor" role should probably be rolling a dice between their townreads including themselves to protect; if outed.
Everyone except the doc will claim VT regardless. If scum trades one for one it becomes a bit harder but it's still not a high-EV play imo.- northsidegal
-
northsidegal Survivor
- northsidegal
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 11587
- Joined: August 23, 2017
even if scum ignites night two, the firefighter would still have no idea if they saved someone or not, because the night action would still be "nobody died" whether they primed or ignited night two, right?In post 129, Sobolev Space wrote:so setup wise one of the things that i noticed is that even if the firefighter stops a priming it'll be impossible for them to know who they stopped unless scum ignites on n2. with this in mind do you think it would even be advisable for the firefighter to claim who they protected if a kill is blocked or no?- northsidegal
-
northsidegal Survivor
- northsidegal
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 11587
- Joined: August 23, 2017
- northsidegal
-
northsidegal Survivor
- northsidegal
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 11587
- Joined: August 23, 2017
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.In post 136, Micc wrote:
sup. For what its worth I wrote the set up with no self protect, but according to the role pm's it is allowed in this game. That might affect possible breaking strategies. I'll have to think on it as well. I remember being pretty confident there were none in the original setup but I don't have or remember any of that analysis.In post 128, Cabd wrote:I realize the creator of this setup is here, but my itch to try and break setups will never truly go away.
VOTE: northsidegal
you don't get to admit that you made a bad vote and then still leave it on all while ignoring the posts I made that showed how bad of a vote it was. Also, where's that meta analysis?
l-2
as for the meta analysis, it's hard to display in quotes how natural you sound in one game as opposed to the other, but here's some awkward confrontations from your scum games:
(post 14 of the thread)Micc wrote:Why are you apologizing for being a bad player and being inherently scummy at this point? Are you scum trying to coast through the game by underscoring your skill so that less is expected of you?Spoiler:- northsidegal
-
northsidegal Survivor
- northsidegal
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 11587
- Joined: August 23, 2017
i think i need to change my playstyle because something similar to this happened in my first game. again, i didn't present a scum interpretation of your cabd push. i thought i had made it clear that it doesn't make sense for scum to do what you did but it was strange nonetheless, which is why i pointed it out. in the future i don't think i'll bother making posts like that, it's obviously not productive. second, were my arguments really "defeated by logic"? you fully admitted yourself that i was right!In post 140, CheekyTeeky wrote: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.
you admitted that i was right about your points being forced! i "withdrew" because there was really nothing left to press you on further, you had admitted that i was right!In post 93, CheekyTeeky wrote: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 forcedbecause 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?- northsidegal
-
northsidegal Survivor
- northsidegal
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 11587
- Joined: August 23, 2017
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.
as for what's happened with cheeky and cabd's claim, it's the same adjective i seem to be saying a lot this game - strange. i really couldn't understand what the slip was meant to be and when cheeky revealed it i didn't think it meant anything. i mean, i knew that arsonists couldn't prime and ignite on the same night before i signed up, so for someone of cabd's experience i would figure he'd have to know. with that in mind i find it really weird how cabd claimed. it didn't seem like anyone except cheeky was really pressuring him so i didn't think it was necessary, and if it was supposed to be obvious by that point then i didn't pick up on it. as with every time i make a post calling something strange, i have to explicitly say that i'm not trying to build a scum case here - obviously if nobody counterclaims then we should believe cabd. at this point i'd say i'm waiting to see where cheeky goes from here.- northsidegal
-
northsidegal Survivor
- northsidegal
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 11587
- Joined: August 23, 2017
- northsidegal
-
northsidegal Survivor
- northsidegal
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 11587
- Joined: August 23, 2017
in case it wasn't clear, i don't cc.
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.In post 241, Hopkirk wrote: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 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?In post 253, CheekyTeeky wrote:
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.In post 248, Chip Butty wrote:I liked this, because it shows [NSG] is reading carefully, and i think scum would have let Micc's misreading slide through.
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.In post 258, Sobolev Space wrote: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:
UNVOTE:- northsidegal
-
northsidegal Survivor
- northsidegal
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 11587
- Joined: August 23, 2017
no, nothing that would be useful, sorry.
- northsidegal
-
northsidegal Survivor
- northsidegal
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 11587
- Joined: August 23, 2017
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.In post 266, Sobolev Space wrote:even if you don't have any strong scumreads do you have any townreads nsg?- northsidegal
-
northsidegal Survivor
- northsidegal
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 11587
- Joined: August 23, 2017
- northsidegal
-
northsidegal Survivor
- northsidegal
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 11587
- Joined: August 23, 2017
for you, your iso is pretty solidly filled with scumhunting. sorting people is what you've been doing since your first post in the thread, and it's always felt both reasonable and town-motivated. things like making sure people can't counterclaim later, no matter how obvious, i would think to come from town. in addition, you've been pressuring kawso's slot for inactivity which i see as town-motivated.
i guess you could call my read on chip more of a "tonal" read. especially from the early game interactions i get the sense that chip isn't actively trying to come off as being town, which is townie in my eyes. as of more recently posts like 168 and 242 seem to be geniuine efforts to examine the game from the perspective of determining the best move for town, which i would almost put above scumhunting on the "townie activities" list. any good scum player can probably fake a push on someone, but posts that step back, look at the whole situation and try to figure out the best path to take seem both harder to fake and less likely to be faked.- northsidegal
-
northsidegal Survivor
- northsidegal
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 11587
- Joined: August 23, 2017
i think most people are scumreading me either directly because of my voting micc for his rudeness or because of the events surrounding thatm and i can see how would be reasonable. cheeky's explanation for her scumread on me in 140 didn't really make sense to me, though. i responded to most of the points in 144 but one thing i didn't add was breaking out of rvs. i can't really be the judge of whether or not i was awkward in rvs but it didn't feel that way to me, and if i was then nobody else mentioned it.
she also makes the point in 237 that i'm pointing out oddities but not really making a push. this is more reasonable i think - if you start from the premise that scum don't want to draw too much attention to themselves then someone doing what i'm doing would look scummy, but i think applying that idea to every time someone points something out without making a push is a bad idea. i would say more on this point but no game i've been in is finished yet.- northsidegal
-
northsidegal Survivor
- northsidegal
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 11587
- Joined: August 23, 2017
i tried to respond to that in 113. it wasn't meant as a defense of cabd, it was me pointing out weird logic in a post that just happened to be attacking cabd. besides, we now know (at least, we're confident) cabd is the firefighter. even if you don't believe that my post wasn't really about cabd, i don't see a potential scum motivation for defending someone like that.- northsidegal
-
northsidegal Survivor
- northsidegal
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 11587
- Joined: August 23, 2017
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.In post 281, Hopkirk wrote: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.
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.Hopkirk wrote: 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.- northsidegal
-
northsidegal Survivor
- northsidegal
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 11587
- Joined: August 23, 2017
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?In post 343, Hopkirk wrote: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.In post 288, northsidegal wrote:furthermore, as i've said multiple times before, i was saying that i thought cheeky's behavior was strange, not that it was scummy.
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?In post 343, Hopkirk wrote: 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).- northsidegal
-
northsidegal Survivor
- northsidegal
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 11587
- Joined: August 23, 2017
i was mad at micc for how rude he was being and i felt the game was still early enough that voting him wouldn't really matter that much. that's the entire reason.In post 351, Hopkirk wrote:Primarily why it was made, in light of the other stuff you were saying.- northsidegal
-
northsidegal Survivor
- northsidegal
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 11587
- Joined: August 23, 2017
- northsidegal
-
northsidegal Survivor
- northsidegal
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 11587
- Joined: August 23, 2017
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
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):In post 289, CheekyTeeky wrote:
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.In post 268, northsidegal wrote:cheeky never responded to 144.
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.In post 93, CheekyTeeky wrote: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 forcedbecause 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?
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:
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:
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.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.
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.- northsidegal
-
northsidegal Survivor
- northsidegal
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 11587
- Joined: August 23, 2017
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.- northsidegal
-
northsidegal Survivor
- northsidegal
- northsidegal
-
northsidegal Survivor
- northsidegal
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 11587
- Joined: August 23, 2017
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.- northsidegal
-
northsidegal Survivor
- northsidegal
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 11587
- Joined: August 23, 2017
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.
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.- northsidegal
-
northsidegal Survivor
- northsidegal
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 11587
- Joined: August 23, 2017
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.
quotes:
Spoiler:- northsidegal
-
northsidegal Survivor
- northsidegal
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 11587
- Joined: August 23, 2017
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.- northsidegal
-
northsidegal Survivor
- northsidegal
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 11587
- Joined: August 23, 2017
chip i'm still confident is town, not really understanding where others are coming from when they scumread him (as opposed to times where i can understand someone's argument about someone else being scum but not agree with them). perhaps i'm biased because i find myself agreeing with him often, however. my opinion in him is largely unchanged from 272.
micc i think is nulltown, if only because i find him kinda hard to read. i don't think i would be willing to lynch him today.
thoughts on btd6 and zito's entrances and the votes on btd6?- northsidegal
-
northsidegal Survivor
- northsidegal
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 11587
- Joined: August 23, 2017
so what are those strong reads zito? any townreads? who do you think is scummy? your predecessor (you replaced kawso, right?) thought i was scum, do you agree?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.
your slot has left us mostly content starved this game and i get the feeling that scum is in one of the two lurkers this game. so far i'm leaning towards you moreso than btd6, but perhaps you could change my mind.- northsidegal
-
northsidegal Survivor
- northsidegal
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 11587
- Joined: August 23, 2017
@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?- northsidegal
-
northsidegal Survivor
- northsidegal
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 11587
- Joined: August 23, 2017
- northsidegal
-
northsidegal Survivor
- northsidegal
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 11587
- Joined: August 23, 2017
not really agreeing here. chip actuallyhasdone some of the things you're describing! as for pressuring you to answer questions, what do you call 523 and 525? you say that he's not examining your iso in detail, but that's pretty much what he does in 521. you could make the argument that he didn't analyze it in detail, but i would say that there wasn't really a whole lot to analyze. it doesn't make a lot of sense for chip to just suddenly start voting you and pushing your wagon just because he believes you've been scummier than ss was - the townread on ss still exists.- northsidegal
-
northsidegal Survivor
- northsidegal
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 11587
- Joined: August 23, 2017
i find myself agreeing with cheeky here. this entire interaction just seems to me like zito being intentionally obtuse when it comes to chip's attempts to have a conversation, and then scumreading chip for getting frustrated. there's been an obvious uptick in the frequency of chip's posts and you can call it scum panicing, but i think it's more likely that chip is actually just getting frustrated.- northsidegal
-
northsidegal Survivor
- northsidegal
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 11587
- Joined: August 23, 2017
- northsidegal
-
northsidegal Survivor
- northsidegal
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 11587
- Joined: August 23, 2017
- northsidegal
-
northsidegal Survivor
- northsidegal
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 11587
- Joined: August 23, 2017
- northsidegal
-
northsidegal Survivor
- northsidegal
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 11587
- Joined: August 23, 2017
freak out about hammering? is that what i did?In post 624, UC Voyager wrote:1 down 2 to go.
I think the scum didn't vote his buddy
Limiting it to NSG, and BTD6. I don't think NSG would have freaked out about hammering if she were scum, so my best guess is BTD6.
i share this sentiment regarding how much sense the case made but i'm not upset about the hammer. perhaps it's a reflection of my skill in scumhunting but i really didn't get the case on chip or see him as scum.In post 631, CheekyTeeky wrote:
Yep. Zitos case made no sense. I'm glad we got scum but it should have been because of something that made sense. I respect Zitos gut reads now, I'll just ignore his logic lol. Also mad that you did nothing to discuss anyone D1 Cabd; and that you hammered without discussion.In post 623, Cabd wrote:Still upset at my lolhammer?
What are the chances of scum bussing D1? I'm feeling like that's pretty low but it would explain why Papas case made no sense.- northsidegal
-
northsidegal Survivor
- northsidegal
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 11587
- Joined: August 23, 2017
micc, most everything you're pointing out i'm confident is you confbiasing yourself, but i take specific issue with you saying my reads weren't backed up. if you'd like to make an argument about how those reads were fabricated i'd like to hear it but they were entirely genuine, and i would say well reasoned. i'm not backing down on this - he flipped scum but i truly never scumread him. like i said, probably a reflection on myself.
i'd also like to point out at this point that people seem to be giving the ucv slot too little scrutiny. he basically made it out of day one without any real content, and without any associatives. also, don't think of 625 as a townslip - i know for a fact that the exact same conversation (ucv expresses confusion over how many scum there are in an open setup) has happened before.- northsidegal
-
northsidegal Survivor
- northsidegal
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 11587
- Joined: August 23, 2017
- northsidegal
-
northsidegal Survivor
- northsidegal
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 11587
- Joined: August 23, 2017
- northsidegal
- northsidegal
- northsidegal
- northsidegal
- northsidegal
- northsidegal
- northsidegal
- northsidegal
- northsidegal
- northsidegal
- northsidegal
- northsidegal
- northsidegal
- northsidegal
- northsidegal
- northsidegal
- northsidegal
- northsidegal
- northsidegal
- northsidegal
- northsidegal
- northsidegal
- northsidegal
- northsidegal
- northsidegal
- northsidegal
- northsidegal
- northsidegal
- northsidegal
- northsidegal
- northsidegal
- northsidegal
- northsidegal
- northsidegal
- northsidegal
- northsidegal
- northsidegal
- northsidegal
- northsidegal
- northsidegal
- northsidegal
- northsidegal
- northsidegal
- northsidegal
- northsidegal
- northsidegal
- northsidegal
- northsidegal
- northsidegal
- northsidegal
- northsidegal
- northsidegal
- northsidegal
- northsidegal
- northsidegal
- northsidegal
- northsidegal
- northsidegal