Newbie 1795 | Summer | Endgame

[Tchill13]

jj what good does it do if I confirm cop?

[Cece]

Also jj, please explain what shading is -- couldn't find anything but art stuff on google??

[Tchill13]

Cece what do you think about Zito case on fykus? You don't like the basis of his case?

[Cece]

Cece what do you think about Zito case on fykus? You don't like the basis of his case?

Zito made a case on Fykus? do you mean someone else? couldn't find it in his iso.

Bed now. Read tomorrow.

[jjh927]

Tchill, right now you are all-but-confirmed as cop. If by some manner of ridiculousness you are not, you would need to reveal that now.

Cece, my understanding is that "shading" refers to when you try to loosely imply someone is scum or suggest that they are without making any direct accusations or stating your opinions wholesale.


Now, the case with that is that, knowing that NM was scum, you figured you'd throw in a bit of early shade on Zito, linking the two. On that note, the person you would be trying to get lynched today would be Zito. Funny that, isn't it?

[jjh927]

Oh god I may have been grammatically correct but I butchered that with ambiguity and commas.

Lemme rephrase that by telling you not to read the words "Now, the case with that is that"

[Arnold Schwarzenegger]

VOTE: Papa Zito

Liking Cece for questioning Zito's townread on her. I was in between on those 2, but I think Zito needs rope here.

[Papa Zito]

Can you put together some reasoning why plz

[Tchill13]

OK I'm confirmed cop

[Kawl]

Scummy

* a) Kawl was opposed to the strategy even though it improved town's odds of winning, including refusing to claim when prompted. b)There were 0 interactions between these slots beforehand and c)Not_Mafia never responded to Kawl's posts post-counterclaim. d) After the counter, Kawl attempts to shut down discussion as fast as possible. e) In addition, Fykus was voting this slot before the claim.


VOTE: Kawl

Alright, just to run through these real quick before being actually productive and looking over people.

a) yea, I didn't think it was particularly interesting. It's a pretty impressive find in terms of optimizing the set up, but as others have said I don't think it crazily improves town win odds (unless scum just completely botches understanding and fake claims lol). Having it be one of the main topics of day 1 is pretty meh in my opinion, gives scum easy topic to hide behind and giving people town cred for going along with it is lazy. Especially since it's being pushed atm as the absolutely must play town approach, what scum in their right mind will be vocal about challenging it?

b) Not_Mafia's post before claiming were pretty much absolutely nothing. I didn't post too terribly much after joining and before the claim, and I typically don't do a great job interacting with people who are flying under the radar (something I'm trying to work on). But okay I guess.

c) NM's style of free posting responses without quoting most of the time makes it kind of hard to definitely state that. I definitely read some of his hostile responses as being directed to me. So disagree.

d) I tried to shut down discussion as quickly as possible by.....not hammering? I specifically didn't hammer so that you could have a chance to weigh in and so we could hear from everyone.

e) Yea conf town Fykus was voting for me, but at this point all but one vote are made in earnest this game. this strikes me as lazy.

[Tchill13]

Kawl do you have any scum reads at this point?

[Kawl]

Ugh, nothing mind blowing in terms of reads tonight.

Trying to determine if its just a difference in approach/opinions when it comes to zito or an actual scum read.

Also, did you ever clarify your mistaken post earlier?

Will reread thread with fresh eyes tomorrow in hopes of not being as worthless.

[Arnold Schwarzenegger]

Can you put together some reasoning why plz

You're scumreading Kawl for bad reasons.
You're townreading Cece for bad reasons.

All of your reads are based on who took part in the BP strategy or whether or not they were on NM before he claimed.

NM had like 0 content before he claimed so anyone voting him was pretty much pressuring him to produce some. I don't see this as AI at all. Same thing with the BP strategy. Let's not get back into that discussion though.

[Papa Zito]

Quote striping because I'm not in a great mood.

a) what scum in their right mind will be vocal about challenging it?

There's a very simple calculus here.

X

improves town's chances of winning. You opposed

X

. Therefore, you opposed improving town's chances of winning.

Which alignment desires this outcome more?

c) NM's style of free posting responses without quoting most of the time makes it kind of hard to definitely state that.

Actually I looked back and found an example where he does respond to you so I withdraw this point.

d) I tried to shut down discussion as quickly as possible by.....not hammering? I specifically didn't hammer so that you could have a chance to weigh in and so we could hear from everyone.

Your first post regarding the issue was this:

Yea NMs argument here just seems pretty empty.

Is there ever a situation in which both are scum counting on being "conftown" after the scum lynch? Nah that's too crazy right. I see no reason to believe NM over tchill. TCs been a more active and meaningful poster so there's that as well.

What all is there to discuss past this point?

This post advocates shutting down discussion.

e) Yea conf town Fykus was voting for me, but at this point all but one vote are made in earnest this game. this strikes me as lazy.

You misunderstood my point. It has nothing to do with Fykus being conftown, it has to do with Fykus being dead. Just prior to the claim, he was voting you, which clearly indicates he was suspicious of you. I'm positing the Fykus kill fits scum!Kawl as a defensive move.

[Papa Zito]

Can you put together some reasoning why plz

You're scumreading Kawl for bad reasons.
You're townreading Cece for bad reasons.

All of your reads are based on who took part in the BP strategy or whether or not they were on NM before he claimed.

Yes my reads are based on wagons and flips, aka hard data.

Riddle me this: Why would scum me so drastically whittle down my options this way?

[Arnold Schwarzenegger]

Can you put together some reasoning why plz

You're scumreading Kawl for bad reasons.
You're townreading Cece for bad reasons.

All of your reads are based on who took part in the BP strategy or whether or not they were on NM before he claimed.

Yes my reads are based on wagons and flips, aka hard data.

Riddle me this: Why would scum me so drastically whittle down my options this way?

Neither player voting NM before he claimed had much reason to. That's not hard data. Willingness to take part in the BP strategy is also not hard data.

Reasons for scum you limiting your options: so you can single out Kawl and hard-tunnel him to death. Then tomorrow you can be like: oh shit what do I do now? I have to reassess my townreads. While today you can give behind those townreads to buddy up the "towny players".

[Papa Zito]

Neither player voting NM before he claimed had much reason to. That's not hard data.

A vote is hard data, period. That's why we force people to make them. It's a historical record of a stance at a given point in time. jfc I know this is a newbie but come on

Also they both offered cases when they made their votes so bzzzzt

Willingness to take part in the BP strategy is also not hard data.

When it's been clearly demonstrated

in this very game

to improve town's chances of winning, why yes it is.

You are also ignoring all other points made and focusing solely on this thing for reasons?

Reasons for scum you limiting your options: so you can single out Kawl and hard-tunnel him to death. Then tomorrow you can be like: oh shit what do I do now? I have to reassess my townreads. While today you can give behind those townreads to buddy up the "towny players".

I'm insulted.

[Arnold Schwarzenegger]

Okay. Maybe I'm confused about the meaning of hard data as a non-native speaker. I considered hard data to be really big argument you were using as your case. I don't feel you have those.

I'm not ignoring the other points. I'm just focusing on the basis of your reads list, which is who was voting NM before the claim and who was taking part in the BP strategy.

The fact that you're handwaiving the reasons for your behavior as scum makes my scumread on you even stronger.

[Papa Zito]

To me at least hard data are basically objective facts. Soft data would be stuff like behavioral patterns or anything else that requires interpretation.

I'm insulted because that's incredibly subpar play. Scum need options, limiting myself as scum is stupid. If my "hard tunnel" (note - this conversation means that point is moot) fails and I don't get that lynch then I'm stuck. Or if Kawl suddenly turns on the gas and reveals himself to be the best mafia player ever then I can't NK him.


Getting back to the original topic - is there not anything more concrete to your case than the fact you dislike my reads? Is there not any other player who you view as worse for any reason? If I were lynched today and flipped town what would you do next?

[Cece]

Cece, my understanding is that "shading" refers to when you try to loosely imply someone is scum or suggest that they are without making any direct accusations or stating your opinions wholesale.


Now, the case with that is that, knowing that NM was scum, you figured you'd throw in a bit of early shade on Zito, linking the two. On that note, the person you would be trying to get lynched today would be Zito. Funny that, isn't it?

Yes, true, that could be possible. Of course, the other possibility was that I was already unsure about Z, and that the alt thing was an interesting correlation......but, that couldn't be right, right? I totally read Zito as town the first day...

Also interested to see what fykus and Cece think of the recent conversations between jj and Zito.

I'm not sure. jj reads town to me, I think, I don't see any scum motivations behind his posts.

Zito - I'm not sure about.

Don't get the motivation behind not explaining the one vote he's made -- the way he's refusing doesn't look *too* bad but the fact he's refusing makes me uneasy. I agree with jj that there's not much pressure Z's put onto Cero - well, he's asked quite a few questions of him but doesn't reallly seemed to have pushed, but

so I can't tell if it's TvT or not, I guess.

Hold on, is this me questioning Zito's motivations? (ps. is this him refusing to elucidate opinions -- p much his only opinion as far as I can recall that isn't based on wagons and vote counts??)

Two replacements - want to see more, but liking Kal so far. jj still town,

Fykus/Zito ehhh

, Cero more town than before but that might be cause I find NM scummier.

Huh wait, this also looks like Zito being one of my scum reads..save NM and possibly Cero. Fancy that!

Fykus is an obvious alt, so I'm curious to see what he'll do.

I think Cece is an alt

Also this is a thing. Not sure why. Wouldn't it be funny if they were mafia together?

And yeah, it's completely impossible that, having read NM as scum, that I'd pick up on the alt thing and point it out. And, srsly tho, it would be kind of funny. I totally stand by that statement.

Have read thru, more detailed than before. Am more ok than before of Zito being scum. Am fine with putting him at L1.

VOTE: Papa Zito

I am sorry for 'pushing a lynch'. Although, in terms of what being called 'pushing a lynch' I'd say I've done p well so far

[Papa Zito]

Hold on, is this me questioning Zito's motivations? (ps. is this him refusing to elucidate opinions -- p much his only opinion as far as I can recall that isn't based on wagons and vote counts??)

the irony

[Cece]

irony how?

[Papa Zito]

You just voted me with 0 reasoning whatsoever

after complaining I don't post reasoning


I love newbie games ya'll

[Papa Zito]

Unless the joke is an actual reason now?

While still being a joke?

[Cece]

Completely different. You didn't post reasoning after, a) implying it was a pressure vote, and b) it becoming obvious that the pressure didn't work. Or, at least, not till some decent time has gone by.

Also, I provided my reasoning in my last post. I believe I also said that I didn't want to vote you cause I was drunk, and I wanted to do a more detailed readthrough of this day/last day to see what I thought. and like I said, after that readthrough I haven't changed my mind.

I might disagree with purely wagon/vote reasoning, which is a way of playing and isn't in itself necessarily scummy --- if I thought that it would be p shitty cause that's kind of 'my way or the highway' thinking. But, I don't like the way you do it. I also don't like the relatively easy defence of "facts" that you use, and PARTICULARLY the fact that you've set up your reads and reasons for your reads in such a way, that you can defend yourself by defending a strategy. That's analysis of theory, and not a defence of play.