VOTE: garaputo
This just seems... Off.
VOTE: garaputo
Welcome back to the pool, try not to keep peeing in it?In post 300, Radical Rat wrote:VOTE: garaputo
This just seems... Off.
I'll take that pepsi challenge!In post 302, Radical Rat wrote:I'll stop when you do
"look at me, i'm so active"In post 304, garaputo wrote:Congrats UC Voyager on being the next to meet the 2 days without posting mark!
I'll now resume watching paint dry and making posts 12 hours apart without anyone posting in between.
gives me pause. yes, it's certainly a reasonable assumption, but the way it's framed makes me slightly suspicious.In post 116, Radical Rat wrote:I don't see why not.
Generally the reason to avoid claiming early is to not get killed, but with no nights that's not an issue right?
On the contrary - I find being able to post walk away for 12+ hours and come back to my own post a sign that no one is active, including myself.In post 307, northsidegal wrote:"look at me, i'm so active"In post 304, garaputo wrote:Congrats UC Voyager on being the next to meet the 2 days without posting mark!
I'll now resume watching paint dry and making posts 12 hours apart without anyone posting in between.
if you care so much about getting the game moving, why not provide some actual content for other people to work off of? you haven't said anything of substance since the flip.
personally, i think the fact that beeboy was specifically a day two vig makes it more likely that ucv is scum, following along with the theory that there's a town pr and a scum pr for each day. of course, it could be the case that day one there's two town prs and the same for scum day two, but i doubt this. beeboy's 83 also makes it likely to me that they were teamed.
the knowledge of the dayvig does cast the massclaim in a new light, however. while it was initially proposed by the ic, this post:gives me pause. yes, it's certainly a reasonable assumption, but the way it's framed makes me slightly suspicious.In post 116, Radical Rat wrote:I don't see why not.
Generally the reason to avoid claiming early is to not get killed, but with no nights that's not an issue right?
VOTE: ucv
I think people that weren't scumreading AFM are a good potential targets for a noose now, and you would be one such person nsg.In post 230, garaputo wrote:In post 229, BuJaber wrote: That puts them at the center of this game. If town they need to assume leadership responsibility and help us win the game. If they don't actively do this insta-lynch. If scum, I suspect that we will be able to find this out. This much power leaks from the pores and we'll sniff it out.
Sort of. Everyone needs to be accountable, it's not like the rest of the game can go on a vacation and expect those against the claim to just solve the game. Basically apply this standard, but to everyone.
why? i wouldn't say it's as if there was any sort of large push on afm that scum would've tried to resist. i didn't scumread him because there was almost nothing from him to go off of. seems a little disingenuous honestly. there's nothing to say that scum wouldn't have given a scumlean on their buddy in afm's absence.In post 308, garaputo wrote: I think people that weren't scumreading AFM are a good potential targets for a noose now,
An even less compelling argument than the one you called disingenuous, don't you think?In post 310, northsidegal wrote:why? i wouldn't say it's as if there was any sort of large push on afm that scum would've tried to resist. i didn't scumread him because there was almost nothing from him to go off of. seems a little disingenuous honestly.In post 308, garaputo wrote: I think people that weren't scumreading AFM are a good potential targets for a noose now,there's nothing to say that scum wouldn't have given a scumlean on their buddy in afm's absence.
Saying that is *equally* likely is itself a less convincing argument than my opinion you call disingenuous.In post 312, northsidegal wrote:hm? i'm not making that as an argument, i'm saying that it's an equally likely possibility, in my opinion.
i'm a little insulted that you think so poorly of my statistical reasoning. yes, afm hadn't done much, but not everyone approaches the game the same way you do. i'm not a fan of lurker lynches so i'd be hesitant to vote someone who i have as null over someone i actively scumread. unless you're going to make a meta argument as to someone typically willing to vote lurkers but not doing so in this case, i think "the people who townread the flipped scum are themselves scum" is an overly simplistic viewpoint.In post 314, garaputo wrote:You can buy a lotto ticket and claim "there are only 2 outcomes, I win or I lose, so I have a 50/50 shot" but that just means you don't understand probabilities.
By your own account AFM had done nothing to demonstrate towniness, so folks townreading or not at least partially in favor of an AFM vote should absolutely have some suspicion given the flip.
I just don't actually think you *really believe* that those things you said were equally likely, in fact are *equally likely*In post 315, northsidegal wrote:i'm a little insulted that you think so poorly of my statistical reasoning. yes, afm hadn't done much, but not everyone approaches the game the same way you do. i'm not a fan of lurker lynches so i'd be hesitant to vote someone who i have as null over someone i actively scumread. unless you're going to make a meta argument as to someone typically willing to vote lurkers but not doing so in this case, i think "the people who townread the flipped scum are themselves scum" is an overly simplistic viewpoint.In post 314, garaputo wrote:You can buy a lotto ticket and claim "there are only 2 outcomes, I win or I lose, so I have a 50/50 shot" but that just means you don't understand probabilities.
By your own account AFM had done nothing to demonstrate towniness, so folks townreading or not at least partially in favor of an AFM vote should absolutely have some suspicion given the flip.
I think you and I take the way UCV revealed the doublevote and day restriction in pretty opposite ways. I have a slight town read on UCV because of that, but I will review.In post 316, Kublai Khan wrote:@garaputo - What's your current read on UC Voyager?
"people townreading scum are themselves scum" doesn't seem like an idea that i would expect you to hold, so you putting it forward seems strange to me. it's likely that my initial impression of you is what was off, but i don't think those two ideas are contrasting or conflicting at all.In post 317, garaputo wrote:I also don't think you can bounce the ideas "not everyone approaches the game as you do" up against the idea that you think I'm being disingenuous in so short a span of posts and actually mean both.
UCV didn't have to own up to the restriction on it.In post 321, northsidegal wrote:i'm not sure how else you guys expected ucv to reveal the double vote. like, would you expect scum to quickhammer someone with it? that would practically be suicide.
Yeah I think you are talking past me towards your strawman. I said that people townreading scum are a good place to look for scum. These are not nearly the same thing.In post 320, northsidegal wrote:"people townreading scum are themselves scum" doesn't seem like an idea that i would expect you to hold, so you putting it forward seems strange to me. it's likely that my initial impression of you is what was off, but i don't think those two ideas are contrasting or conflicting at all.In post 317, garaputo wrote:I also don't think you can bounce the ideas "not everyone approaches the game as you do" up against the idea that you think I'm being disingenuous in so short a span of posts and actually mean both.