Micro 745: Beyond Death [Endgame]

[Chip Butty]

I wasn't badgering you during the period of the game where my work rate decreased was I

And is this an admission that you have been badgering me the rest of the time? Interesting that you introduce the term badgering which i didn't.

[Micc]

Sobolev is scum leaning Hopkirk too, yet you have no problem with that?

Nope.

@Micc: Given your keen interest in Hopkirk assessments and progressions, how did you fail to notice this?

I missed it because I don't have a keen interest in Hopkirk assessments and progressions.

Also the case has built beyond what it was on page 1. Stop pretending like it hasn't.

The 'case', as you call it, seems to amount to this:

1. A joke RVS vote on a guy who was replacing out.
2. Post 56, where you failed to notice all the content.
3. We differ in our assessment of Hopkirk. Yet you don't question at least one other who shares my assessment.
4. I downgraded you a notch, and you don't like the reasons stated so far. Yet you don't comment on the unexplained Sobolev progression on Hopkirk.
5. I haven't apparently been gamesolving enough for you, perhaps because like i said I've spent most of my time in this game responding to 1-4. I mean, show me where anyone has come up with a solid case on anyone in this game.

The case is that:
1. There is no town motivation behind your post 56, just the scum motivation of trying to disband your wagon.
2. I think the trajectory and reasoning behind your reads are unnatural and have bad logic.
3. You aren't voting, don't have a primary scum read, and don't appear to be doing anything to change that.

And is this an admission that you have been badgering me the rest of the time? Interesting that you introduce the term badgering which i didn't.

"Badgering" is the equivalent of "pushing" in my opinion. One's a little more in line with the festivities of central Wisconsin on a college football Saturday so that's what I went with.

But yeah. I was pushing you before and then I stopped and now I'm pushing you again. I will admit to that.

[Chip Butty]

No town motivation behind 56???

I was saying if i got lynched there was a high likelihood of both scum being on my wagon, effectively narrowing the field to 5. How is that not town motivated? I've already pointed this out.

Btw, for the record, which of 1-5 do you currently stand by? And, again, is there anything else you want to bring?

[Chip Butty]

Sobolev is scum leaning Hopkirk too, yet you have no problem with that?

Nope.

@Micc: Given your keen interest in Hopkirk assessments and progressions, how did you fail to notice this?

I missed it because I don't have a keen interest in Hopkirk assessments

A simple 'nope' isn't going to cut it. You owe us a reason why you have a problem with me scum leaning Hopkirk but not Sobolev scum leaning Hopkirk.

Yes you do have a keen interest in Hopkirk assessments. You have assessed him yourself and attacked me because my assessment differs from yours.

Progressions: you attack me because i lowered you a notch and you don't like the reasons stated so far. So you are noticing progressions, but only selectively, it appears.

[Chip Butty]

I mean yeah NSG's approach to this game has been very weird; but can somebody explain why it's SCUM-weird?

yeah that's where I got hung up as well.

how do you feel about what I said in post 229? ive got a lynch pool of kawso, BTD6_maker and hopkirk and then chip butty and northsidegal are on the second tier.

Speaking of progressions, you've gone from having Hopkirk in your lynch pool here (above me, I might add) to thinking, apparently, that he is towny. Please detail specifically what changed your mind in the intervening 7 (if i counted correctly) posts.

[Chip Butty]

I could quote every post hopkirk has made that is either a) actively pushing a wagon on a player he thinks is scum or b) questioning a player in order to develop a read. I could then do the same for you. His list would be significantly longer.

Because scum never do these things, right?

[Chip Butty]

^^By 'detail', I mean with quotes to illustrate.

[Micc]

No town motivation behind 56???

I was saying if i got lynched there was a high likelihood of both scum being on my wagon, effectively narrowing the field to 5. How is that not town motivated? I've already pointed this out.

Btw, for the record, which of 1-5 do you currently stand by? And, again, is there anything else you want to bring?

Yes, you pointed that out. And I responded to it in 154 and 164 among other posts. I agree we've done this dance already. We don't need to continue fighting over it, but my opinion hasn't changed and I'm obligated to bring it up when you ask me to state my case.

I literally made a numbered list. I'll go on record for standing by the things on my list. If I had more things they would have gone on my list.

Re 327:
I'm not pushing you for scum leaning Hopkirk. I'm pushing you because I think your reasons for scum reading Hopkirk are poorly analyzed and look like fake reasons. That's not how I feel about Sobolev's reasons which is why I'm not pushing him.

We could flip this around and talk about your assessment of non Hopkirk players and it wouldn't change how I feel. I already gave your read on me as an example and could do the same for your read on now essentially confirmed town Cabd if I wanted to.

Yeah I pushed you because your progression sucked. You moved me down three spots on your reads list because I hadn't posted for like 30 hours. If I noticed other players with read progressions as unnatural as that I'd question them for it too.

Predit:
Geez it doesn't end. Let me grab my laptop so I don't have to try and quote stuff on my phone

[Micc]

Speaking of progressions, you've gone from having Hopkirk in your lynch pool here (above me, I might add) to thinking, apparently, that he is towny. Please detail specifically what changed your mind in the intervening 7 (if i counted correctly) posts.

Sure.

Spoiler:

The lack of ability to build momentum on any wagons so far this game makes me want to look for scum in the lower activity players. At the same time I'm conflicted because I generally view parking a vote on a player for lack of participation as a waste of time.

This is where I started on my hopkirk read.

VOTE: North

This the vote Hopkirk already had in play.

This kind of conflicts with the previous post, given you imply it's not enough for

you ]/i] to go off of there.

This is your first posts after the one i brought up earlier. Firstly, it doesn't fit with you saying the purpose of RVS is to get out of RVS, and it sounds like you're going for more RVS rather than going with what their was.

More importantly, I don't get why you didn't vote Cheeky, given your suspicion of their interaction with Cabd.

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.

Conclusion: Buddying up to a lot of people, not really attacking/pressuring anyone. Some conflicts in terms of says/wants/does. Biggest points of consideration are the confusing voting on Micc, the unresolved issues i have with the cheeky/Cabd thing, and the other scumreads.
Read progression on Micc could would be townish if the first thing was resolved.

These are posts that Hopkirk has made that show him either building or pushing a case on the player he thinks is scum. I moved him above you on my reads list because I think building and pushing cases is a town thing to do and I think the majority of his analysis is natural and has sound reasoning.

Let's talk about Hopkirk. He's your lowest read of the players with more than two posts. I have him moving above you because I liked a lot of things he did in his catch up. What's your read based on?

And this is where I ended up with my read on him.

I could quote every post hopkirk has made that is either a) actively pushing a wagon on a player he thinks is scum or b) questioning a player in order to develop a read. I could then do the same for you. His list would be significantly longer.

Because scum never do these things, right?

They do if they are trying to act like town. What's your point? I don't think Hopkirks push is fake. I do think what little amount of pushing you have done looks fake. I don't know how many different ways I can try to explain or show examples of that.

[CheekyTeeky]

This feels like TvT...just saying.

[Micc]

ehh, that's certainly possible. doesn't mean i'm going to stop pushing tho.

Kawso has been prodded.

Lycanfire, do you have an update on this? It's been nearly five days now since he last posted.

[Chip Butty]

@Micc: I just want to clear up something before we continue. How many games of Mafia would you say you had played when you designed this setup? Ballpark will do...

[Micc]

Probably like 5

[Chip Butty]

Probably like 5

Okay, so I've been operating under a misconception. I thought designing a setup, one that has a name and is used by other Mods , as opposed to just a 1-off, was a pretty big deal and something only very experienced players did.

[Micc]

Nah, you can run pretty much anything you want in the micro queue with one game of moderation expierence as long as people will sign up for it. Not too long after I first ran it, the setup won one of the categories of an open setup design contest and got put into the wiki and now it gets ran every once in a while. It's cool and all - I'm certainly proud of it, but I wouldn't even say I'm the most accomplished moderator playing in this game.

So why does this matter again?

[Chip Butty]

We've got Cabd as doc, BTD6 as v/la, and Hopkirk and Kawso in need of a prod. I also don't really want to lynch a lurker but I'm not yet getting any super scummy vibes among Micc, SS, CT, and NSG.

Of those four I'm finding Micc to be townest mainly because he refused to be fobbed off when burrowing on 56, even though i didn't give the answer he wanted right away. I think scum would probably have pretended to be satisfied and moved on more easily. However, of he is operating at the level of designing setups, we are probably screwed if he is scum.

You dropped a little lower partly because of the work rate thing, and partly because of what i said about you being a setup designer. Let's just say i expect you might be pretty good at insinuating yourself into a town block.

Like i said, it had a bearing on why i lowered your ranking. After posting the first quote, i started thinking 'If this guy is designing setups, he's probably played a lot and knows everything about how to hide as scum'. So the demotion was more wariness on my part than anything. Plus scum sometimes bustles to establish cred and then cruises, and i suspected you a bit of that. I guess because you were so present early, it really stood out.

[Chip Butty]

Btw, don't expect me to charge around making cases for the sake of making cases, which is what i kinda think you're doing. I'm content to put this game on the backburner until the BTD6 and Kawso slots activate. I'll still respond to questions and slog through ISOs (if you give me time), but that's about it.

[Chip Butty]

NSG cont.

83 and 88 defends Cabd against CT. Seems thoughtful and reading carefully.

The vote on Micc at 84 is...not good.

More later...

Chip, from this I cannot understand your stance on NSG. You've pointed out posts that you think are townie and a post that you think not good. Was the "More later..." in reference to NSG or just a promise of more content later?

It meant i would continue my ISO of NSG later, and i will, if Micc allows it. I'm not hugely enthusiastic, though, because my impression of NSG is probtown. It's just that one vote mainly, but town can do bad votes too.

[Hopkirk]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Part 1

1.) It wasn't the kind of response I'd expect to see town make on someone they were neutral on.
2.) You mention Cheeky once in it, and Cabd multiple times. You were commenting on Cabd significantly, intentionally or not. Don't blame the reader on this.
3.) There weren't any conclusions, so at best it just reads as commenting rather than scumhunting. If you didn't vote Cheeky, or mention any conclusions on Cheeky, then it's just busywork that looks good as a substitution for scumhunting. That's a commonish alternative to scumhunting from scum.

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.
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).

[Hopkirk]

Because he didn't put you in the suspicious section, and I find you suspicious, so want to know why.

But what does this have to do with the post you referenced? What am I missing here? In the post you referenced micc concedes that NSG might be town. He hasn't provided any lists? I find it suspicious that you chose this quote when a couple of quotes later he says he is still suspicious of NSG. It seems like you're choosing a quote that puts micc's suspicion of NSG in a better light and which has nothing to do with me...so you quote that then ask how micc feels about me.

Why are you suspicious of me? Don't make the weak mistake of saying I'm suspicious with nothing to back it up, while providing a null leaning case of NSG...

Because his reads list was in that post. I was asking purely because you were not on the reads list in that post.
I'm suspicious of you based on what I've mentioned already- your reads progression is confusing, and the odd lack of jutifying your read on my by saying you'd do a reads list instead, when that wasn't what had been requested.
Why is my case null leaning? If you think I'm town (based on last reads list), then why not try and persuade me I'm wrong to prevent a TvT?

[Hopkirk]

Micc's work rate has definitely dropped off after an initial burst of activity. Possibly cruising after having established some town cred.

Hopkirk on the other hand has picked up activity after initially being quiet, but while he raises a lot of points my overall impression is that they lack penetration.

I kind of like CT's recent observation that NSG's comments are not of the sharp scum hunting variety but i also sympathise with NSG because nobody is yet standing out as especially scummy.

I think kawso either has to join the game or be replaced. Don't really want to vote that slot until we get something from it.

First time mentioning my case without referencing anything said in it.

It's pretty much just what I've already mentioned. An overall impression that his observations aren't all that penetrating, but it's only a lean because it's not as if anyone else is doing much better. I get the impression everybody is just spinning their wheels a bit at the moment.

I kinda do disagree about Kawso though. It might be that scum is being hard to find because it isn't playing the game.

Second time mentioning he thinks my case is bad without referencing any of the case itself.

I've already said i don't have anything special in the reads department yet, and neither does anyone else including you and Hopkirk. If you differ in your assessment of the value of his insights, that's fine, but I'm not seeing it. Perhaps point us to some especially acute Hopkirk observations?

Also, there's another reason you've slipped down a bit in my reads list, but I'm not ready to reveal it just yet. Maybe if you ISO yourself you might see it...

Third time mentioning he thinks my case is bad without referencing any of the case itself.

Well Hopkirk doesn't have some guy banging on about minutae like accidentally voting for a guy replacing out, whereas i seem to spend most of the time i have available for this game dealing with that. Don't you get the irony of it? But please continue. I want you to dig up every tiny nitpicking point you can and bring it so that i have to spend time responding. And then i want you to complain that I'm not doing any investigating. I mean, nothing else much is happening in thecthread, so we might as well do this until the BTD6 and Kawso slots get into the game.

Putting aside Micc's response, how does someone scumreading you in game (who I assume you think is scum based on what you've said) stop you from doing anything else? Unless your internet provider charges you by the word...

[Hopkirk]

I wasn't badgering you during the period of the game where my work rate decreased was I

And is this an admission that you have been badgering me the rest of the time? Interesting that you introduce the term badgering which i didn't.

'Were you murdering the victim during the period of the 12th to the 14th?'
'I was not murdering the victim during the period of the 12th to the 14th.'
'Ah, so is that an admission that you were murdering the victim at another time?'

No town motivation behind 56???

I was saying if i got lynched there was a high likelihood of both scum being on my wagon, effectively narrowing the field to 5. How is that not town motivated? I've already pointed this out.

Btw, for the record, which of 1-5 do you currently stand by? And, again, is there anything else you want to bring?

Something we certainly wouldn't have thought of ourselves. Especially not Micc the super super experienced setup designer who can design setups but not think of things like 'if a town is quicklynched there's a good shot scum were voting them'.

Sobolev is scum leaning Hopkirk too, yet you have no problem with that?

Nope.

@Micc: Given your keen interest in Hopkirk assessments and progressions, how did you fail to notice this?

I missed it because I don't have a keen interest in Hopkirk assessments

A simple 'nope' isn't going to cut it. You owe us a reason why you have a problem with me scum leaning Hopkirk but not Sobolev scum leaning Hopkirk.

Yes you do have a keen interest in Hopkirk assessments. You have assessed him yourself and attacked me because my assessment differs from yours.

Progressions: you attack me because i lowered you a notch and you don't like the reasons stated so far. So you are noticing progressions, but only selectively, it appears.

I still don't see why anything you've said on me makes me scum leaning rather than null in your perspective.
Still waiting on the case that I'm sure will resolve this.

@Micc: I just want to clear up something before we continue. How many games of Mafia would you say you had played when you designed this setup? Ballpark will do...

Micc said in thread he only had two scumgames.

[Hopkirk]

I also townlean on Sobolev and scumlean on you btw Chip.

[northsidegal]

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?

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.

furthermore, as i've said multiple times before, i was saying that i thought cheeky's behavior was strange, not that it was scummy.

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).

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?

[CheekyTeeky]

Because he didn't put you in the suspicious section, and I find you suspicious, so want to know why.

But what does this have to do with the post you referenced? What am I missing here? In the post you referenced micc concedes that NSG might be town. He hasn't provided any lists? I find it suspicious that you chose this quote when a couple of quotes later he says he is still suspicious of NSG. It seems like you're choosing a quote that puts micc's suspicion of NSG in a better light and which has nothing to do with me...so you quote that then ask how micc feels about me.

Why are you suspicious of me? Don't make the weak mistake of saying I'm suspicious with nothing to back it up, while providing a null leaning case of NSG...

Because his reads list was in that post. I was asking purely because you were not on the reads list in that post.
I'm suspicious of you based on what I've mentioned already- your reads progression is confusing, and the odd lack of jutifying your read on my by saying you'd do a reads list instead, when that wasn't what had been requested.
Why is my case null leaning? If you think I'm town (based on last reads list), then why not try and persuade me I'm wrong to prevent a TvT?

Oh I see what you mean now.

If you're confused about my reads progression that's your own problem, you should be asking me questions if it's killing you to know. I've already suggested my play is not linear. Anyway confusion on my points is NAI. I've answered your question about my read progression of you and why I didn't do it immediately when requested, so you can drop that line of enquiry or start a new line.

Your case on NSG was waffling on but never came to a conclusion. You need to tell her why you're leaning one way or the other on her and put your vote where your mouth is. The point is that you had time to "analyse" her actions in depth without an indication of your read, but then you just throw out your suspicious read on me without justification. Why?