Mini 1991: Taking Justice Into Our Own Hands (Town Win)
-
-
Lexa
-
-
Lexa Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 587
- Joined: January 16, 2017
-
-
Lexa Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 587
- Joined: January 16, 2017
Chaotic goodIn post 18, Papa Zito wrote:
What is your alignment?In post 17, Lexa wrote:Also hi, hello, hey there! Think I've only played with rb before so if anything you want to know I'll be here all day-
-
Lexa Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 587
- Joined: January 16, 2017
Honestly I'm pretty bad at d1s too but they're definitely not a crapshoot if you're looking for the right things. Why don't you want to draw out the d1, have more to look at once a scum flips?In post 23, Havo wrote:
Man those stinking technicalities.In post 21, Papa Zito wrote:
But you hate Day 1s and want to get to Night 1 to get the game rolling.In post 19, Havo wrote:Oh yeah, well I won’t self hammer.
You know, goes against my win condition and all.-
-
Lexa
-
-
Lexa Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 587
- Joined: January 16, 2017
Fair interpretation. It's much simpler though. Wagons are good. Discussion is good. Interactions are better.In post 55, havingfitz wrote:Your post to Havo seemed to imply the town attitude of not rushing to end D1 so that we have more to look over. All the while you are supporting (and still are) his rather quick wagon. Which is on the verge (L-1 or 2?) of bringing D1 to an early end.
So it seems to me you are more interested in the negative...quick end of D1 then the alternative good situation you question Havo about.
If we're at all competent Havo doesn't get lynched unless his defense of his position is specifically incriminating so helping create the wagon serves to both identify whether that will be the case and move us out of RVS. Follow up questions help make the situation clearer in that regard, and getting to know why Havo is against D1s can be an important data point to hold him to later.-
-
Lexa Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 587
- Joined: January 16, 2017
-
-
Lexa Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 587
- Joined: January 16, 2017
I wouldn't go so far as to say it would make him more suspicious, not at this stage yet anyway. Entering with a meta dive shows a certain investment in the game and interest in sorting people out that in my opinion tends towards town sided, if he's done it before as mafia than that aspect can be discounted as a possible reason to town lean him.In post 59, numberQ wrote:
Never played with him before, but I don't put much stock in meta. It has its place I suppose, but in general I prefer going off of what happens in this game. Cedrick's meta investigation against Havo was circumstantial and lacked context, and I don't think your current meta investigation against Cedrick is going to uncover anything worthwhile. Would a previous scum game of his where he put in this exact amount of effort make him more suspicious in your eyes?In post 57, Lexa wrote:Has anyone played with Cedrick before? His opener of digging into Havos game history is interesting and I'm curious if anyone has seen him put in that degree of effort in a scum game in the past.-
-
Lexa Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 587
- Joined: January 16, 2017
-
-
Lexa Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 587
- Joined: January 16, 2017
Hello fellow off-siter!In post 76, Cedrick wrote:
if he is willing to hammer anyone who gets to l-1, he has to be willing to receive the same and so I will be happy to oblige. I am not going to vote him because I am not convinced he is scum yet.In post 71, numberQ wrote:I'm more interested in why Cedrick would hammer Havo but doesn't want to vote him.
I'm curious why you would be willing to proceed with a quickhammer, neglecting claims and such. I'm not sure I see Havo's willingness to do the same as justification to turbo him off hand-
-
Lexa Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 587
- Joined: January 16, 2017
Sure, haven't said anything about them so far because they're on my radar for trying to sort them!In post 80, northsidegal wrote:
i'd appreciate if you could explainIn post 75, Lexa wrote:@northsidesegal I don't think I understand the position where your vote on me is coming from so I'm going to ignore that for now
What are your thoughts on users: fitz and riggs, specifically the vote to content pattern of the former and the tone of post #26 for the latteryourthoughts on those people first, because you haven't really said anything about either so far and i don't want to just give you my thoughts for you to just agree with or say that that's what you were thinking.
With respect to Riggs I'm trying to determine if his entrance was genuine or not. His #26 seems towny on the surface from a tonal level but it's also the kind of vanilla entrance I've seen scum do practically every game; I'm trying to decide if there's more to read below the surface or not which is why I wanted your thoughts, to see if I was the only one it concerned.
Fitz is on my radar for his curious mode of engagement, entering with the naked RVS vote into the naked vote on me, yet responding to dialogue with me fairly quickly. Usually I'm familiar with people taking one tack or the other, dropping naked votes to pressure people without giving them much to rebut against, probing for reactions, or engaging with them directly to try and suss out their alignment. I don't often see the pressure voting tack dropped so quickly and so I'm wondering if there's more to that pattern. In general nothing he's said has been specifically alignment indicative but his analysis of me was fairly surface level which could be an indicator of scum if he uses future surface level analysis to push for a lynch.-
-
Lexa Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 587
- Joined: January 16, 2017
Just my natural thought process I guess. My home site doesn't allow alt accounts.In post 82, northsidegal wrote:
what makes you call him an off-siter and not an alt?In post 81, Lexa wrote:Hello fellow off-siter!
I'm curious why you would be willing to proceed with a quickhammer, neglecting claims and such. I'm not sure I see Havo's willingness to do the same as justification to turbo him off hand
why ask the same question that a few people have already asked at this point?
I don't really care if other people have asked similar or the same questions, I want engagement and I want dialogue, preferably with me so I can sort people-
-
Lexa Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 587
- Joined: January 16, 2017
Good caseIn post 79, Awoo wrote:Cedrick, why do you want to hammer havo? You know this implies the final vote of a lynch correct? Is this a misunderstanding or do you actually want to lynch him? provide reasoning.
=========
I don't know what to make of Q's reaction to my vote. Made me say "wtf". Here's why I'm voting Q:
- Don't like his tone
- Asking a lot of unnecessary questions 34, seems like the only purpose of that is to """be town""" or show concern for the game
- 43 wtf
- What north said too
- Doesnt understand that im going to win the game 31
- 71 [talking about self voting] [Also, why are we arguing the merits of self-voting?] more useless posts why??
- 72 @Q ok what do you make of this? is it AI? because there are votes on lexa, so what do you think of that?
-74 - doing it again "look at me ive been asking those questions and analyzing" - you shouldnt have to bring this up. your ""townyness"" is being shoved in my face so much that I am forced to question your motivations!
oops sorry if i just made a case on the third page x-D
===============
PEDIT:
Hey north!! see my opener, im taking it easy now. this should have good results ))))))))
VOTE: numberq
@awoo: what about his tone is pinging you? Has seemed fairly par for the course so far-
-
Lexa
-
-
Lexa
-
-
Lexa Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 587
- Joined: January 16, 2017
You know the feeling you get when something is so nondescript it stands out to you? Basically that. The rest of the playerbase so farmostly have had something distinctive or defining about them. Not so much riggs. Hence, caught my notice, hence, thinking about if it's meaningfulIn post 90, northsidegal wrote:
i don't see anything alignment indicative about riggs' 26 and i'm not sure why this specifically was something that caught your eye as something to be analyzed.In post 83, Lexa wrote:With respect to Riggs I'm trying to determine if his entrance was genuine or not. His #26 seems towny on the surface from a tonal level but it's also the kind of vanilla entrance I've seen scum do practically every game; I'm trying to decide if there's more to read below the surface or not which is why I wanted your thoughts, to see if I was the only one it concerned.
In my experience people who pressure vote as a primary tactic continue that for some time and don't typically engage with the people they're pressure voting. Fitz followed on with neither of those things which makes it notable to me. Personally, I'm rather pleased he responded because it's rather irritating to try to start a conversation and get ignored (which has usually been the case when I've been subject to pressure votes in the past).
neither of fitz's votes have been naked, even if there wasn't a lot said in either of the posts. i'm also not sure what you mean by him "dropping the pressure voting tack" – clearly his initial vote on you had some reasoning, which he followed up on and described to you.Fitz is on my radar for his curious mode of engagement, entering with the naked RVS vote into the naked vote on me, yet responding to dialogue with me fairly quickly. Usually I'm familiar with people taking one tack or the other, dropping naked votes to pressure people without giving them much to rebut against, probing for reactions, or engaging with them directly to try and suss out their alignment. I don't often see the pressure voting tack dropped so quickly and so I'm wondering if there's more to that pattern. In general nothing he's said has been specifically alignment indicative but his analysis of me was fairly surface level which could be an indicator of scum if he uses future surface level analysis to push for a lynch.
I'm guessing we have different meanings of naked voting cause idk how you'd define his rvs vote as anything else-
-
Lexa
-
-
Lexa Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 587
- Joined: January 16, 2017
Ah, see I see a naked vote as one without game related reasoning attached. Duly noted!In post 95, northsidegal wrote:Thatwas a naked vote.
"Vote: Luca Blight because i liked his old avatar better" is a random vote, but not a naked one.-
-
Lexa Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 587
- Joined: January 16, 2017
While I'm here show me anywhere I said that I was suspecting riggsIn post 97, numberQ wrote:
This smells funny. Other players are more distinctive so Riggs is suspect? That doesn't make any sense.In post 93, Lexa wrote:You know the feeling you get when something is so nondescript it stands out to you? Basically that. The rest of the playerbase so farmostly have had something distinctive or defining about them. Not so much riggs. Hence, caught my notice, hence, thinking about if it's meaningful
Misrep #2-
-
Lexa Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 587
- Joined: January 16, 2017
Did you not read my posts. I literally asked northside what he thought about fitz because of the disparity between the pressure voting tactic and the discussion engagement. His first two posts were (relatively) naked, his third was very much not. That distinction was what I was looking for input on. smhIn post 101, numberQ wrote:Was his vote on you not attached with game related reasoning? He quoted some of your posts, expressed confusion/doubt, and voted you.
PEDIT: This is where you said you were suspecting Riggs, maybe not in so many words but I'm not gonna get into a semantics argument. The point I was making is you were throwing him into doubt because he wasn't distinctive enough? If I'm understanding correctly.
In post 83, Lexa wrote:With respect to Riggs I'm trying to determine if his entrance was genuine or not. His #26 seems towny on the surface from a tonal level but it's also the kind of vanilla entrance I've seen scum do practically every game; I'm trying to decide if there's more to read below the surface or not which is why I wanted your thoughts, to see if I was the only one it concerned.
lol fuck off with semantics. If I were suspecting riggs I'd be pushing and/or voting him. "Hey this post seems towny but there might be more to it what do you think" is not making someone a suspect-
-
Lexa Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 587
- Joined: January 16, 2017
-
-
Lexa
-
-
Lexa
-
-
Lexa Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 587
- Joined: January 16, 2017
-
-
Lexa Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 587
- Joined: January 16, 2017
Ah, I see where you're coming from. Interesting train of thought. I thought I was already the leading wagon so no, it wasn't that, it was that you chose to enter the game by hopping on the wagon without any other form of contribution. Not good enough.In post 125, Mumble wrote:Of being made the leading wagon?
See, this is basic psychology, something that I said or did struck a nerve. I'm inclined to think it was me voting you and making you the leading wagon. It's why you didn't really react strongly to NSG or rb, but you did to me.
I've got to do the dishes. Be back soon. Much love, Lexa.
Alexcellent is now guilty of the same thing-
-
Lexa Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 587
- Joined: January 16, 2017
I'm really not a fan of people telling me things I did or did not do so if there's a bite to this I apologizeIn post 132, Mumble wrote:
No you didn't. Your post was immediately after the votecount.In post 131, Lexa wrote:I thought I was already the leading wagon so no, it wasn't that
Try again.
I don't give a shit when the vote count was. I was reading the thread and posting from mobile using quick reply, replaying to a specific chain of conversation. This occurred concurrently to the vote count being posted and it wasn't something that affected my response when the pedit thing came up. That's a fact and don't you dare try and tell me otherwise.
And so you're my current priority and he's joined the line.
And, so...In post 131, Lexa wrote:Alexcellent is now guilty of the same thing-
-
Lexa Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 587
- Joined: January 16, 2017
-
-
Lexa Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 587
- Joined: January 16, 2017
You came first? Really not that difficult lol.In post 135, Mumble wrote:
Vote count came an hour before my post/vote.In post 133, Lexa wrote:This occurred concurrently to the vote count being posted and it wasn't something that affected my response when the pedit thing came up. That's a fact and don't you dare try and tell me otherwise.
Try again.
Why me over him? Am I pushing to hard, and he's just kinda "meh"?In post 133, Lexa wrote:And so you're my current priority and he's joined the line.
Moreover it's a lot easier to prioritize someone who's actively engaging with you so on that front I appreciate it-
-
Lexa Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 587
- Joined: January 16, 2017
Okay dude at least try and put some half-thought reasoning in your attacks, drop the semantic nitpickingIn post 137, Mumble wrote:
My defense is faltering! Grasps for straws, ensign!In post 134, Lexa wrote:EBWOP: disregard my last re: post timing, thought you were referring to a different post
As for voting reasons, they are what I said. You entered the game by jumping on a wagon without any game advancing content. That gets a vote everytime.
So me and Alex did the same thing. Why not vote him. It gets a vote everytime.
You're my priority for doing a thing that gets a vote: shocker! My vote is on you! He did the same thing which I noticed: shocker! He gets a vote after I resolve you.-
-
Lexa Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 587
- Joined: January 16, 2017
Like literally what is this postIn post 122, Mumble wrote:Pretty sure we got ourselves a textbook case of OMGUS right there. Can't handle the pressure very well, can you?-
-
Lexa Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 587
- Joined: January 16, 2017
You know what, why don't you take a moment and iso me because that's not my thought process and there's really no rational way you could conclude that it isIn post 140, Mumble wrote:So, in your thought process, me and Alex are both scum? Why not NSG or havingfitz (or rb for that matter)?-
-
Lexa Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 587
- Joined: January 16, 2017
Is it not a requirement for you that OMGUS have some sort of emotional investment?In post 143, Mumble wrote:It was a post that happened an hour or so ago, and pointed out that you naked voted me after I voted you, thus pointing out the OMGUS-factor.
As far as I'm concerned my vote on you neither was nor is OMGUS, rather calling you out on the flop of an entrance to get you to engage-
-
Lexa Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 587
- Joined: January 16, 2017
Fine. You want my approach to the game or thought process on your vote?In post 147, Mumble wrote:
I did. Didn't see a thought process.In post 144, Lexa wrote:
You know what, why don't you take a moment and iso me because that's not my thought process and there's really no rational way you could conclude that it isIn post 140, Mumble wrote:So, in your thought process, me and Alex are both scum? Why not NSG or havingfitz (or rb for that matter)?
Care to explain?-
-
Lexa Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 587
- Joined: January 16, 2017
-
-
Lexa Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 587
- Joined: January 16, 2017
And once again, you're flat out wrong.In post 154, Mumble wrote:
Yes? It's an emotional reaction to pressure. When there is an immediate reactionary vote without reason, it lends credence towards some reason for it happening.In post 150, Awoo wrote:Mumble is OMGUS scummy? I mean you keep saying OMGUS but is it a general scumtell? better question how is it scummy in this case? A lot of the time I see OMGUS i never see it pushed with this angle, its always ironic or overlooked kind of like how no one does NKA
Why vote me immediately after I start pressuring? Sure, an hour later the slot came up with somewhat of a reason, but there was an immediate reaction.
Granted, it could be newbtown who doesn't want to get lynched, but I don't see that in Lexa.
You voted me on zero reasoning after directly claiming not to have invested in the game state.
I voted you for that and your immediate reaction was to claim I was OMGUS voting you, immediately to ascribe some degree of emotionality to me. Are you sure you're not projecting anything?
Also, I'm sure this might come as a surprise to you but I have a life, commitments, that sort of thing. I've been in the middle of packing tonight in preparation for a move out tomorrow. I saw your first post at the time you posted it, I saw the other post an hour later when I got back to a computer.-
-
Lexa Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 587
- Joined: January 16, 2017
Every single thing you've accused me of are some emotional reaction you're imagining I've having and you're trying to push a narrative based on that that's flat out wrong.
I don't know if you're aggressive town trying to gun for someone he thinks he's caught or mafia trying to push for an early lynch but cut it out and actually have a conversation without twisting the narrative-
-
Lexa Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 587
- Joined: January 16, 2017
Do you think Mumble pushing the OMGUS narrative comes from town or scum?In post 150, Awoo wrote:Mumble is OMGUS scummy? I mean you keep saying OMGUS but is it a general scumtell? better question how is it scummy in this case? A lot of the time I see OMGUS i never see it pushed with this angle, its always ironic or overlooked kind of like how no one does NKA-
-
Lexa Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 587
- Joined: January 16, 2017
Jesus fucking christ dude learn some reading comprehension
Read the game =/= invested in the game state!!!
Literally asking people who to vote, following the main wagon, voting without rationale. Yeah no shit you read the game but you blatantly didn't give a shit about who you voted for.In post 119, Mumble wrote:Hey cool...it's Friday night and I don't feel like reading.
Who do I need to vote? I'm leaning towards purplename guy.
Also...
Hi.
And big fucking surprise someone's iso is fairly defensive when they've spent two hours defending themselves from a player who seems aggressively determined to twist their interpretations to fit the view they've decided on-
-
Lexa Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 587
- Joined: January 16, 2017
Yeah, no, it's not. Talking to people and engaging with them and talking about their thought processes is not being defensive. It's fucking playing mafia. Someone questions something I do? I'm responding and telling them why.
So how about you take off the mafia coloured glasses you're wearing, use some critical thinking, and come back to sort me once you're not biasing every single thing you see-
-
Lexa Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 587
- Joined: January 16, 2017
-
-
Lexa Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 587
- Joined: January 16, 2017
-
-
Lexa Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 587
- Joined: January 16, 2017
-
-
Lexa Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 587
- Joined: January 16, 2017
Yeah yeah wall posts scummy zzz whatever they work for me
(I will preface by saying that the wall contains my thought process as I go through the thread so it might be hard to follow or so I've had that complaint before anyway)
numberq's post 6 piggybacking off of fitz's rvs vote, suggests a preference for building wagons possibly to create content, watch future votes for wagon building vs wagon creating coherence
Havo's disclaimer in 7...hmm. By definition it can't be alignment indicative but could it imply something about his state of mind that he felt the need to post the disclaimer in the first place? Inherently it has to lean town because while both alignments want to notify the game of their intent here, scum can't be as willing to get policy lynched. If future posts hold coherent with a town mindset this slot probably sorts town. The more pressing inference is of his playstyle, the severe disagreement with D1 as a concept and the refusal to give reads suggests that Havo either is unconfident with or doesn't believe in independent behaviour as reliably indicating alignment and prefers either role results or flip associations to sort people. If Havo starts attempting to sort people based on behavioural reads that could be a scum indication.
Riggs at post 26 still feels weird. Yeah it's only page two but to this point the game is already out of RVS with a 3 vote wagon on Havo and two previous votes sitting on mumble, plus a lot of relevant posts related to Havo's principle. Entering by ignoring all of that is...weird...but I'm not certain if it's alignment indicative. Have to imagine it signifies either cautious mafia or busy/unaware town. Could be a relevant marker but it seems more likely that he would have read the 25 posts than not.
Huh then he follows up at 30 by voting Havo after prompting by zito. Seems to support both narratives, either not noticing the wagon or not wanting to join until prompted. Possibly self-conscious? Feeling awkward for not having joined or commented on the existing wagon?
q is feeling gross. His comment to cedrick in #40 feels tonally different from the rest of his posts so far and his assertion in #54 of fitz catching me in a contradiction is an extremely generous interpretation if he's town.
fitz 55 seems fine on the surface but that's kind of the problem I have with it, very surface level reasoning. Seems more interested in pointing out things to use as ammunition rather than thinking about why that thing exists. Note to check future posts for this degree of thinking.
Hm interesting. NSGs vote on me at 67 seemed fine at the time, if weird based on assuming a scum team with cedrick, but in retrospect looks rather manufactured. Seems to imply that a users join date is information that every user should always be aware of and that not factoring that into your posts can be a reason to be scum. Reasoning seems flaky to me at best unless someone is known to specifically consider that information. FoS here.
The piggyback by q at 72 is equally bad, especially given his previous stretch of a situation. Scum lean.
At 76 cedrick hasn't really provided any content thats alignment indicative but I like he way his tone comes off. Every post I've seen him make is clear and direct in its meaning and implication, might be biased because that makes it easy to see where his thought process is at on a specific topic, but it feels very townie.
Ah a case at 79! I liked this by Awoo on numberq the first time let's see if it holds up. 1: tonal reads are pretty subjective so sure, reasonable. 2: can't say I agree with his citation for asking unnecessary questions to look town, requests for info are NAI to me and there's other kinds of questions, like asking someone to clarify an apparent position or easy 1v1 questions that imply "trying to look town" more reliably. 3: for example, calling out 31 for the easy "you said what?" post on an obvious meme is a much better indicator. 4: agree on the volume of useless posts, don't agree it's AI particularly given the volume of discussion Havo's principle caused. 5: hard agree that 74 is the LAMIST post to ever LAM. Overall: very valid reasoning and a strong case to make for page four. That being said, similar to fitz a lot of this is fairly surface level and could be manipulation of qs positions, though I read him fairly similarly so I'm inclined to put this as a town lean.
q's 86 pedit is still hilariously awful
NSG's 110 is something of a follow up to 67 and curiously enough actually makes me think she's town. The assumption that I would have had access to information from a pre-game discussion thread is a pretty large leap of logic to make and one that I would expect her to know wouldn't hold up if she were in fact scum but doubling down on this tack here somewhat suggests that she thinks she's figured out a tell and isn't going to drop it, it's somewhat tunnel vision-y in combo with 67 and suggests a coherent mindset in scumhunting. Solid town lean after this.
Ah. It's mumble. Note to self: probably scum but be careful of bias
But seriously what the fuck is this opening. 119: "Hi I don't feel like reading tell me who to vote". 120: "k I read here's a vote on a main wagon". 122: "Whoa fuck you hahaa I got you you OMGUSer ggggg!!!" Really, really, just want to call this aggro scum and call it a day but I can't discount acerbic town, they get me every friggin time.
Mumble's 125 is kinda confusing though, on the one hand you have massive assumptions creating a justification for voting me, but on the other hand this argument is also extremely self-centered which is typically more town indicative. "You don't care about these people but you care about ME" kinda suggests the same thing as NSG, that they think they might have got someone and they're going to tunnel in on it no matter what.
alex and rb entered in the past 25 posts too with fairly NAI posts but with alex needing follow up for the complete lack of content
Reading Mumble's posts over is pissing me off again :/
Right so Mumble is being a dick while pushing me in 132/135/137, sure fine, whatever. It's posts like 140 that really support the aggro scum theory: it's Mumble who comes up with the idea that I'm voting him (and not alex) for thinking that they're scum. Except that at no point did I suggest he was scummy, my vote and follow up was entirely about getting him to post content. It's Mumble who creates my supposed mindset and it's Mumble who uses that creation as a means to attack me for voting him (and not alex). He's manipulated the situation and filled in gaps with his own ideas in order to put me on the defensive and discredit my vote on him. Like there's some behavioural considerations that he might be town but fuck that, this is scum. Looks a lot less obtuse and a lot more manipulative with a clear head looking at it.
VOTE: Mumble
Note to self, 1v1 Luca. 178 suggests that he's having thoughts and engaging in some way but it's all surface level, need to see the thought process.
Note to self, keep an eye on potential buddying from Cedrick (i.e. 179)
Bunch of rb posts through 180s-190s, interesting content but hard to sort, very sparse. The reasonings against me/mumbles seem based in logic if nothing else.
Awoo has a bunch of posts up to and including 201 that are notable but don't engender much in the way of commentary. Nothing specifically alignment indicative but all very positive in terms of tone.
rb's 206 is the first post of his that's specifically notable with his commentary of false positives and that I really like because it suggests he's thinking about alignments at a higher level more likely to be town.
(kinda burnt out and took a break here)
Riggs is back at 227 with a curious vote on mumble, it's now the second time he shows up and makes a relatively empty post onto one of the main wagons. It does seem to provide some light support for the cautious mafia theory since it's impossible to argue he's unaware here. It's also curious to me because it seems like an awkward way to enter into a wagon on your scumbuddy, very low committal when your justification is "has been rubbing me the wrong way". Comfortable putting riggs in my scum pile but I'm also thinking that riggs isn't scum if mumble is and if mumble is town riggs is scum. Don't think town riggs impacts mumble's alignment yet.
Luca's 244 is a good look. Valid arguments and reasoning in response to NSG's case on Cedrick, but doesn't use it as a segue into a vote or case on NSG.
Alexcellent is lock town for me. 276 is a really strong thought process, a very natural read devlopment and a coherent mindset justifying their read on me. 278 is even better, a very high level reasoning trying to get at numberq's mindset when posting. Straightforward, rational, no exaggeration or misdirection, I would be shocked if this flipped scum.
Town
Alexcellent
Awoo
northsidegal
Cedrick
rb
Luca Blight
Havo
Papa Zito
havingfitz
Riggs
numberQ
Mumble
Scum
scum on my wagon are within mumble / q / fitz, alex vote is pure
mumble wagon looks good under the assumption that mumble/riggs aren't scum together, green flip mumble=scum riggs every time
need to see more from luca/havo in particular-
-
Lexa Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 587
- Joined: January 16, 2017
Oops sorry meant to go back and fill those inIn post 312, Papa Zito wrote:She made a bunch of references to posts without links or quotes so it's gonna take me time to parse. I did enjoy my color, I've been campaigning for a similar color for the chat mods for ages now.-
-
Lexa Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 587
- Joined: January 16, 2017
Is effort posting enough to shift your opinion of someone? What if a scum read of yours effort posts?In post 311, havingfitz wrote:The fact she was exerting some effort.
I thought her final reads list was decent with the exception of my position on it.
The more in depth opinionations will require a more in depth review when able.
What did you think of it aside from the move to Mumble?-
-
Lexa
-
-
Lexa Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 587
- Joined: January 16, 2017
-
-
Lexa Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 587
- Joined: January 16, 2017
-
-
Lexa Goon
-
-
Lexa
-
-
Lexa Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 587
- Joined: January 16, 2017
Dunno how you'd get that impression but no, that was my train of thought going through the game started after my post at 301(?)In post 390, northsidegal wrote:lexa, was any / most of 303 just a copy of notes that you took as the game was going on? or was that entirely newly created? it seems to be to be the former.-
-
Lexa Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 587
- Joined: January 16, 2017
-
-
Lexa Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 587
- Joined: January 16, 2017
Not quoting because fuck formatting on mobile but responding to you Luca
Something can be inherently NAI (havo's principle) while being more probably town motivated (scum avoidance of policy Lynch). Straight forward
The key word in that sentence was reliably, if have doesn't believe that reads are reliable D1, something he said explicitly iirc, then it stands to reason he prefers to use flip analysis and role results as the core of his reading. Doesn't mean he'll never use behavior to make a read but by being unwilling to do it D1 it shows a possible tell against him if he were to start doing so D1
Sure it's a standard RVS opening for a standard game. Except this isn't really a standard game. Standard games don't typically have multiple wagons with potential momentum by the end of page 1. I don't believe riggs, or anyone, jumps in with an RVs vote without at least skimming the first page and noticing the numerous votes placed
Aside from the fact the stance isn't even contradictory you're missing the point, pointing out something surface level and using that as ammunition doesn't work if you aren't considering the implications of why what you're attacking was posted, and you don't need to see someone post to think about that - the surface level posting suggests hes not concerned with sorting alignment
Cringe away, I said from the start it was a layout of my thought process
Want to engage with you specifically because you've been posting things that are generally on the ball imo but I've not been getting a good feel for why or how you're getting there
If they were scum buddies I'd expect he enters the wagon with a definitive stance, at least sheeping the reasoning of someone else on the wagon or avoiding it entirely
I wasn't shading you? Was appreciating if anything, you had a situation where as scum you could have used your counterarguments as a means to easily transition into a justified vote but instead simply guided NSG away from their stance on cedrick, that you didn't is a positive marker for me
Alex's posts were more than decent they were hugely town telling and more than enough for my "over analysis" to sort them. Don't need to take 50 posts when they show you in two-
-
Lexa Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 587
- Joined: January 16, 2017
-
-
Lexa Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 587
- Joined: January 16, 2017
Is this seriously your read on a day 1 vote?In post 474, havingfitz wrote:[
How is lobbying for a player to consider the benefits of having a long day while actively efforting to end the day for that same player not a contradiction?-
-
Lexa
-
-
Lexa Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 587
- Joined: January 16, 2017
-
-
Lexa Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 587
- Joined: January 16, 2017
-
-
Lexa Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 587
- Joined: January 16, 2017
-
-
Lexa Goon
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-