Mini Normal 1775 END!
-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 40, knightmare wrote:In post 36, Boonskiies wrote:Alright, but actually. Way too defensive already. It's page 2. Hot damn.
Defensiveness isn't a scum tell.
Townies and scum don't want to get lynched either way. I'm gonna call out bad reasons regardless. This counts as one.
My understanding was the defensiveness WAS a scum tell. Not a "only scum do it" thing but something that leans scum more than town. Am I off base here? Admitted newbie (this is my third game and first participating in RVS) so maybe my theory background is weaker than I thought, so please do correct me if I'm mistaken.-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 49, knightmare wrote:In post 45, Boonskiies wrote:You are correct. I actually do believe defensiveness leans more scum. Especially if scum thinks they arecaught and shouldn't be.
I still disagree. I think townies are just as likely to attack bad cases against them. I've caught a lot go scum for this very thing when they push BS reasons for scum reads.
Out of curiosity, knight, have you caught scum for "BS reasons for scum reads" right of the RVS gate? Or is that a process that happens later on?-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 70, Almost50 wrote:In post 43, mhsmith0 wrote:My understanding was the defensiveness WAS a scum tell. Not a "only scum do it" thing but something that leans scum more than town. Am I off base here? Admitted newbie (this is my third game and first participating in RVS) so maybe my theory background is weaker than I thought, so please do correct me if I'm mistaken.
yes, I think you are a bit off. but I'm not going to pretend to be almighty and all knowledgeable.
...That being set, let me irritate everyone even more by *Drum Roll*....
VOTE: knightmare (L-2)
Non-serious vote to put knight at L-2 because... ?-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 100, Sakura Hana wrote:In post 77, knightmare wrote:is a gigantic leap in logic for that stage of the game.her trying to say I could be scum sheeping a partner in Smith
This part.
You asked me to show you the scum motivation behind your actions, i went and showed every possible scum reason and town reason i could think of, and showed why the town reasons werent possible, yet you spun it around as it being the sole reason i was pushing you.
@knight: I don't recall her saying or implying that you were my partner. Is it your understanding that sheeping means partners?-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 104, Sakura Hana wrote:I said it when i was mentioning possible reasons for scum to do what he did on 31
nevermind missed it-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
@knight: This is my first time doing RVS so... I don't know? It does seem that you've been taking this surprisingly seriously, so I wonder if you're a bit too defensive.
But frankly, my scum hunting approach is to try and figure out sincerity, try and figure out who's fake scum hunting, etc. I find it difficult to parse out the BS that's town trying reaction testing and messing with people form the BS that's alignment indicative.
PS Why do you think there's scum on your wagon? Why not just a bunch of townies that thought it'd be fun/interesting/productive to build a quick wagon and see what happens? Do you think that the wagon was a serious attempt to kill you and bring D1 to a quick close?
PPS Did you notice that the only person who hasn't posted since the confirms went in was the scum I caught? Why abandon such a clear winning wagon?-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 114, Sakura Hana wrote:In post 113, mhsmith0 wrote:PPS Did you notice that the only person who hasn't posted since the confirms went in was the scum I caught? Why abandon such a clear winning wagon?
Red Flag here, the game hasn't been open for 24 hours, what's the correlation between time of posting and scumminess?
/ninja'd: yeah you missed it
/double ninja'd: Partially jokey, partially because I wanted to see what knight would say. Possibly that was a bit too obvious of bait for him to say something stupid over.-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 116, knightmare wrote:PS: Based purely from a mathematical standpoint, it's already likely that there's scum on my wagon. Any random populace in the game of 4 or more players should produce at least one scum. I was up to L-2 at one point. Your question is a good one to ask though. The difference is in how I have been cased. Do you get the vibe that anyone who was wagoning me is doing it just for kicks? Or am I legitimately getting pushed as a serious scum candidate? When it's the latter, knowing my alignment, I now have to discern who is genuine and who is just trying to kill me because they need the mislynch. Can everyone who voted me be all town? Yes, but I strongly doubt it.
What I'm getting from this post is that you honestly thought (or at least heavily suspected) that it was a serious attempt to kill you. What in that stream of votes made you think that? The L-2 vote in particular was such flagrant bullshit that even I picked up on it.-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 153, Sakura Hana wrote:In post 152, Almost50 wrote:Also, I've got a question: Do we know anything specific about the setup? Like, do we know exactly how many mafia players to expect? Whether there could be an SK? Any particular roles that are guaranteed to exist?? etc..?
Not really, since the setup is fully closed, mafia members are usually about 25% of the playerlist more or less.
To my knowledge, no details are really known. There's a fairly wide list of roles that COULD be in this game but that's about all we're given.
PS Can someone clarify the case on Sayaka? I know she's planning to murder one of us tonight and frame someone else for it, but besides that?-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 165, Madonna wrote:In post 138, mhsmith0 wrote:@madonna: is it your opinion that the wagon was a serious attempt to end d1 quickly?
This is a weird question and so is every instance where players in this game talk about serious votes. This is for everyone:every vote, even in RVS, should be counted as a serious vote,because you should absolutely always vote how you are feeling. If a player is voting someone, the voter is saying, "I want this person lynched," not, "No feelings or beliefs behind this." I can accept votes that okay a lynch on a lukewarm read, but only if we are nearing deadline and the voter does not have a better, stronger read on someone else. No one should be saying that their vote is not serious, and if they are, maybe consider voting them to help make them realize what a vote means.
I do not think a wagon on knightmare was an attempt to end the day early. I think it was something which could lead to ending the day, but if the mafia were on a mislynch, it was for the sake of a mislynch, not a day ending move.
I don't understand this. You seem to be saying that RVS is in fact not RVS at all. You also seem to be saying that it's not legitimate to toss on a vote simply as a reaction test as opposed to a serious read. My understanding is this runs contrary to board meta. Can you correct me if my assessment of board meta is off, or clarify why you feel this way?-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 178, Madonna wrote:I do not care for your understanding of board meta, whatever the board meta is, or most arguments which categorize things as meta. Things which matter are things in this game.
"Things which matter are things in this game" is fluff. I'm trying to understand whether you're being contrarian or whether my sense is off. To the extent that you're being contrarian, I need to evaluate how you're being contrarian, and what I think about it.
In post 178, Madonna wrote:You misunderstand. First, RVS exists. Simple as that. Second, votes count. An RVS vote counts as a vote. "Reaction/test" votes are still votes. I do not care what kind of votes they are once we are beyond RVS, and RVS votes need to be evaluated once we pass the threshold into serious discussion. Why? Because all votes are votes, and all votes matter.
Awesome. How do you propose to evaluate RVS votes? Are votes made SOLELY for the sake of reaction testing reasonable and legitimate? Consider what you'd said previously:
In post 165, Madonna wrote:This is for everyone: every vote, even in RVS, should be counted as a serious vote, because you should absolutely always vote how you are feeling. If a player is voting someone, the voter is saying, "I want this person lynched," not, "No feelings or beliefs behind this."
So if your answer to my question is yes, I'm having a hard time seeing how your perspective holds together, and would like clarification. And if your answer is no, why aren't you openly suspicious of Almost50? You're aggressive on Sakura due to her behavior, presuming that votes are serious. But Almost50 displayed even more flagrant "I'm voting purely for reaction test purposes" behavior, AND he openly town read Sakura for the very same behavior you seem to find scummy, see 74.
Actually, let me be even more explicit on where I'm mentally going with this. You and A50 seem to have diametrically opposed reads of the same behavior of Sakura's. And neither of you seem remotely interested in engaging each other on that point. Why is this? Why are neither of you engaging with the other's theory (or even read as a whole, since A50 also added to town read at 152)? This seems like an obvious area of discussion from the both of you, given how substantial your disagreement appears to be. Why aren't you trying to engage with each other in thread?-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 199, Boonskiies wrote:I don't have any reads yet. I don't have reasons for doing anything. I'm waiting for stuff to happen.
Do you have a rough estimate for when you'll be more dialed into the thread? Laziness early D1... dislike but shit happens. Laziness for all of D1... makes me not a happy camper.
As for actual content, I need to re-read some of this stuff myself. I'm sure I'll have that done by next week (more seriously, by tomorrow, maybe tnight).-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 211, Almost50 wrote:In post 185, Boonskiies wrote:I'll catch up tomorrow. Busy past couple of days. Party tonight for Saint patty's, woot woot.
Warning.. warning.. Scummy vibes detected. Please beware and consider taking action.
The theory being?-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 228, Boonskiies wrote:In post 193, mhsmith0 wrote:@boon: why are you lurking? 185 read to me like you were going to be checking out of the thread.
This is the only thing I don't like of mhs. I clearly said I would catch up tomorrow in 185.
Yes, but I read it as "I'll be back tomorow" and suddenly you're back playing defense. Lurking may have been the wrong word but hopefully that clarifies. Anyway longer post coming.
Ps where can I redeem boon points?-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
The lack of interaction between a50 and Madonna on Sakura just seems bizarre given how opposed they say they are. Not sure which it points to worse but it really pinged my radar.
I'll +1 on boon thinking a50 rushing to l-2 is odd. He's voting to pressure... And it almost seems JUST to pressure. I don't see what HE thinks the Lowell case is or should be.
I also dislike 160. "Let's all focus on one thing at a time" feels lazy and an excuse for laziness. I want people to make organic decisions so we can hold them accountable for what they're doing, INCLUDING how they spend their time. The more decisions people need to make the more chances we can see scum screwing it up.
I'm comfortable joining this wagon.
VOTE: almost50
Ps boom anger: genuine or fake? This feels like a priority item for sorting him.-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 283, Lowell wrote:...And wagons on newbs are fun, anyway.
...
so I'm moving to an easier, hopefully more hilarious, target.
Serious vote or joke/reaction test? I'm assuming the latter for now. I dislike playing games with votes but whatever.-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 282, knightmare wrote:Madonna, I'll just be blunt about it.
I think you town reading Lowell for what he has done thus far this game is pretty sketchy. I'm not sure what that means about his alignment in conjunction with yours yet but it certainly doesn't make me feel good about you.
Toss in a50 and could that be scum team? Could it really be THAT easy? Would they really be THAT blatant? Worth considering I suppose. Easy answers make me uneasy but it's not like scum teams never screw up. Hmm...-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
Almost50:
1) Why did you town read ( 74 ) Sakura's vote pull? Most people who AI-read that moment (one way or the other) gave actual reasons. You just dumped a read on the table and walked away.
2) You've hopped on bandwagons for "pressure", and in neither time was there any actual scum reading involved. 70 explicitly stated that you were NOT scum-reading knight for his defensiveness... but you voted him anyway.
And 162 was hopping on a bandwagon as a vote whip (defined on my other site as "), as opposed to expressing any kind of genuine scum read.The behaviour of voting for a player to encourage them to answer a question, participate, or otherwise engage in debate."
Why would anyone feel much "pressure" if there are non-genuine votes dumped on them and only at L-2? Especially early in D1 on a board that isn't crawling with potentially hammer-happy newbies?
PS Extra demerits for ANOTHER vote whip (or empty "pressure" vote) in 82, this time on Sayaka.
3) You were scum reading boon in 211... what's your theory here? That read seems lazy to me. 214, disliking
might be a case... but aren't you basically doing the same thing? Other than almost randomly hopping between wagons, I read your ISO and see really not much of any substance or effort.I don't have reasons for doing anything. I'm waiting for stuff to happen.
4)In post 305, Almost50 wrote:Or maybe it's because I don't like naked voted to begin with
5) Do you see the above list? Do you feel pressured? Even though you're not even at L-2? Almost like you don't NEED a large wagon to create pressure and demand accountability? If so, hopefully you see why I'm so unimpressed by your "let's just create substance-less wagons for 'pressure'" position. Now answer my questions, and then put enough actual effort into scum hunting to make me rethink my scum read on you.
PS @lowell: remember 84? Is it fair for me to interpret you as "let me put together a lazy, half-assed case on some newbie to look like I'm helping"? Because that sure seems scummy to me. I'm still happy sitting on the A50 wagon but I find myself really disliking your contributions.-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
@lowell: Let me see if I have your case right.
1) Your tone is affected.
2) You're sensitive about pushing people to L-2.
3) 1 and 2 are true, therefore you're scum.
Is that it? Is there more? That seems like a lazy/junk case even if both 1 and 2 are true (which I guess I might as well argue against since you say you're taking it seriously).-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
1) Was hoping for a lowell clarification, but whatever.
This is my third mafia game, and my first time doing RVS (my first game was on a different site with oddball mechanics in games, and icebreaking posts that typically focus on that instead of RVS, and my second game is on this site [ongoing], and I subbed in post RVS). My posts in that phase (or about that phase) reflect a lack of confidence in my understanding of standard RVS theory and practice. I have no idea why it makes sense to read much into that. Similarly, it's my first mini normal here, so that's where 154 came from. Because I DON'T know all the rules, and it's entirely possible I didn't know something important.
Other than that, I guess you're looking at 138? If so, that was a specific question to Madonna to get a clarification on her position, since reading the knight wagon was her main contribution to date. I don't see this tone as affected becuase I'm trying to be clear and explicit about what SHE was thinking.
2) Regarding L-2: I showed "sensitivity" to L-2 at 73 and 241. In both of those, if you bothered to read them, I showed sensitivity to a SUBSTANCE-LESS rush to L-2. Do you see the difference? Do you see how my position depends on the SUBSTANCE of that L-2 vote? And how in both cases A50's L-2 vote read empty to me? And if you do see this, do you see why I think your argument here (that I'm just being sensitive to L-2) is lazy at best, reductionist and manipulative at worst?
PS: I read your vote at 276 as a possible joke/reaction test because it was lazy, empty, and shitty. I did you the courtesy of assuming you were making the vote for some kind of "reaction test against the newbie" reason. Because your vote and stated reasons were so bad that I couldn't imagine you were actually being serious. Well, that and the fact that I wanted to remove your potential "oh I was just reaction testing" defense/back-out BEFORE engaging with your case.
PPS
Maybe some of the votes that are currently sitting on you, perhaps?In post 316, Lowell wrote:This guy needs some votes
PPPS Impress me with your response or I'm switching my vote. You and A50 are my top two scum reads right now, and I'm comfortable with lynching you first. I'll give you the courtesy of getting one free shot at a response before I push you to L-1. If I don't hear back in a couple of hours, that's where my vote is going.
PPPPS Having fun yet?-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
Smith is scum because ____?
Lowell might be town because ____?
I'm especially curious about the second. You were scum reading Lowell consistently in your posts, but now that the wagon looked like it was nearing L-1 and turning really serious you wanted out and are now town reading Lowell. You give no reason for this, just a flat stated town read (cushioned by a "might" modifier). This just SCREAMS tactical voting. Justify your vote and your reads. Yes, I know. Actual effort and transparency. It's a drag but unfortunately it's what the town needs to see in order to actually evaluate you.-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
PS @ chilledtea:
143 had you town reading me. Please clarify to the board what your original town read of me was based on, and what changed your mind to go from town read to scum read. You've flagrantly flipped reads on two players (lowell and me), without the slightest bit of justification.-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 336, chilledtea wrote:The nonsensical reasons you have given make me feel that you don't understand the context under which certain actions took place in this game. It almost felt like you are trying to get reasons for your scum read by going through the thread rather than stating your actual feelings.
Lowell could be town because he said the same thing about you.
1) "The nonsensical reasons". WHICH "nonsensical reasons"? And why are they nonsense?
2) "You are trying to get reasons for your scum read by going through the thread rather than stating your actual feelings." You mean like looking for evidence and holding people accountable for what they say, and being clear on WHY I am reading people as scum, instead of just hand-waving "oh my gut says town", "my gut says scum". How in that world is THAT scum-indicative?
Seriously, why not just go all out and say "MHS is trying to scum hunt, therefore he must be scum"? Or do you think I'm fake scum hunting? And if the latter, where is the EVIDENCE for me fake scum hunting? Note that "my gut says you're fake scum hunting" is NOT something I consider an acceptable answer.
3) Lowell could be town because he agrees with your position? Seriously, that's it? What about all the stuff you scum read him for before?-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
@A50: wrt 341 Thank you. My immediate reaction is that I think that makes sense, but I need to let that rumble around my head for a while. Ditto your other responses.
@Sakura: My intuition is that "trying to achieve town unity" is null, not town. I think there's a lot of room for scum to hide behind "town unity" since they have to make fewer decisions, and can potentially fake their way into that "town unity" group. And I'd read A50's efforts along those lines as fake. I owe him a re-read given his responses.
PS If you think my theory here on "town unity" efforts being null is bunk, please let me know why. I've put effort into learning theory, but it's entirely possible I've missed something important.
@chilled: Sigh...
1) I still don't see the "nonsense" you alluded to earlier. "They are nonsense" is restating your assertion, not providing support or evidence. Try harder.
2) Vote whipping by itself isn't what I scum read him for. It's about the context. In this case, my context was that I was reading A50 as consistently presenting empty votes to the group. Seriously, this is spelled out in 326. You're being reductionist by accusing me of scum-reading A50 just for vote whipping. Try harder. Tell me what else you think is nonsense.
3) It's not surprising that people can change their reads of me. It IS surprising that someone would drastically change their read of me without spelling out why. Seriously, here's how I'm currently reading your progression:
332 I'm bailing on the lowell wagon and scum reading MHS because reasons
336 I'm scum reading MHS because he demands that I spell out my reasons. Also, his reasons are nonsense failing to understand context.
343 Again, it's nonsense because it doesn't understand context. Okay fine, here's one example.
And in fact I'd say that your accusation of my voting A50 for vote whipping is a GREAT example of something that's [post=nonsense because they fail to take context into consideration]nonsense because they fail to take context into consideration[/post]. Literally, the context was spelled out in that post. I was explicit on my reasoning. You might DISAGREE on my reasons, but if you do, be explicit on that.
4) You've said that multiple things I've done are "nonsense". Your example is totally unconvincing. Since you've apparently identified mulitple such things, you owe me and the board the rest of them.
/ninja'd: so now you un-vote me for something that came out before your lazy vote on me to boot
But even better, you're happy to be back on the Lowell wagon! Town lean for him retracted? Dare you provide us with your reasons why?-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
Actually...
UNVOTE: Almost50
I'd by lying if I said I town read you right now (I still lean scum on you), but I'm liking your response (and the reasons you gave for town reading Sakura's behavior I think make sense, although I still wish you'd just said why earlier), and the stench of scummy bullshit from Lowell and Chilledtea is just too strong. My vote belongs on one of them, now I just need to decide which one.-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
@Sakura: Essentially, the problem I had with A50 was that I couldn't tell if he was actually scum reading lowell or just "vote and see what happens", and the latter read to me like non-genuine / tactical voting, which I considered scummy behavior. Given the context described, I'm rethinking that interpretation.
As far as Madonna goes, on 182 I was questioning whether her perspective holds together. She seemed to be saying that reaction test votes weren't legitimate. But if that's the case, then why wasn't she doing anything about A50 explicitly doing just that? I read her behavior as inconsistent with her stated mindset/theory. And I found that inconsistency to be suspicious. Not that the theory itself was necessarily wrong. She subsequently answered that question at 204, and while I didn't find the answer super convincing, I did think it was plausible.
PS My intuition is to agree with you that if things stay chaotic indefinitely, that probably helps scum. But if we're just unifying artificially early D1, I'm not sure that's as helpful as you think it is. Then again, seeing what happened when the lowell wagon built steam gives a lot of credit to your theory.
PPS I don't mind the length at all, it helps me understand where you're coming from.
PPPS Any comments on the interactions between CT and me just now? It felt non-genuine from CT, both the vote on me and the sudden "never mind I'm back on lowell" shift (I need to take a step back and re-evaluate if I'm being fair to CT there, along with a larger re-read, before I pursue things further, but that's my current take). If the idea is to see what happens when the lowell wagon gets serious... well, CT's behavior was certainly the first thing that happened. And I definitely feel like that needs to be evaluated.-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 354, Lowell wrote:In post 350, mhsmith0 wrote:Actually...
UNVOTE: Almost50
I'd by lying if I said I town read you right now (I still lean scum on you), but I'm liking your response (and the reasons you gave for town reading Sakura's behavior I think make sense, although I still wish you'd just said why earlier), and the stench of scummy bullshit from Lowell and Chilledtea is just too strong. My vote belongs on one of them, now I just need to decide which one.
All this guy can do is OMGUS. Look, we all want to believe newb is town and can be taught, but it's clear his motivation is self-preservation rather than scumhunting. That he does the former while pretending to do the latter is not a bonus.
Clarify your theory about how I'm acting for self-preservation. The only vote on me is you. CT voted and then unvoted (but who knows, maybe he'll randomly come back?), no one else seems to be scum reading me, and multiple players (off the top of my head, boon and knight) have been town reading me. That you think I'm currently in any meaningful danger of being lynched is either lazy or intentional misreading. In neither case am I impressed.
Also, clarify how I'm pretending to scum hunt. What have I done that is non-genuine or otherwise indicative of fake scum hunting? Evidence is helpful. Unsubstantiated aspersions are not.
PS @Everyone else: this reads to me like an advance "an MHS vote on me is just OMGUS and therefore illegitimate" play. Color me unimpressed.
PPS Per 330, I'm not impressed with your response. And I'm switching my vote. VOTE: Lowell. I'm also satisfied with a CT wagon.This is now at L-2 again.-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 360, Lowell wrote:yeah, because it's dumb. honestly no one believes I'm scum, they just think "meh, he's sort of annoying, and better him than me... sure I can live with that."
Not to mention that two of the five votes on the bus (knight and me) are apparently just OMGUS
More seriously, there are reasons people are voting you, and being dismissive and reductionist about those reasons is the opposite of engaging with things honestly. Is there a town reason for this approach? The scum reason for it seems obvious.
@Boon: Is there something specific about the wagon you don't like? The reasoning behind the votes? The popularity of the bus? CT's "off then back on" move? Lowell's behavior somehow reading town? etc.-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
@boon: Theoretically I like that point! Easy fall guys are always too easy for comfort. HOWEVER, what makes you think that Lowell is "easy fall guy" instead of "flailing caught scum guy"? I feel like there should be something meaningful that suggests one of the following:
1) Lowell is dumb rather than scum (or some other mislynch bait indicator from his play)
2) There are people on Lowell who are BS'ing their lazy cases
3) There are scum sitting on the sidelines ready to join the lazy lynch
Which of those things do you think is the case? "Oh it's too easy" is a starting point of an argument. Move past that and start working on WHY you think it's too easy. Maybe start with "for no real reason"? Which among the votes on Lowell sounds fake or lazy to you?-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 364, Boonskiies wrote:I don't know; do what you want with the wagon, I'm not going to be a part of it, though.
Dislike. If you don't like the wagon, take a meaningful stand against it. Try and convince us we're wrong. Show us you're invested in what happens with the D1 lynch. "meh I don't care do whatever you want just don't blame me" does not make me a happy camper. Not at all-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
I actually find the "here since 2006" argument shades against the "easy fall guy" point. I would think he'd learn how to avoid that by now. I don't mind re-reading the cases against Lowell to see if anything looks odd, but I feel my case against him is solid. His behavior has to me reeked of scum, not of lazy mislynch bait.-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
@Sakura: is that at me or Boon? I'm thinking Boon but please let me know if you're talking to me. I just looked at your ISO and I don't think I saw the town case against the Lowell lynch. 353 was against the A50 vote, 342 was mainly "I find most of the scumreads nonsensical" without seeming to be Lowell specific.-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
@SH: Yeah, 353 (along with A50's own posts) helped convince me my vote shouldn't be on that slot (and the Lowell/CT convinced me that my vote needed to be on one of their slots instead). Fuller re-read of A50 to come at some point, but I feel like Lowell and CT are the priority items. I wanted to make sure you weren't saying you'd had a town case against the Lowell vote, because that would have been jarring.
wrt 372: none of those three have really been posting enough to leave a strong impression. IMO good reason not to want to end D1 early. Not (IMO) good reason to think that Lowell is the wrong wagon. That said, from the limited data so far:
Expedience - I like what he's been doing. I feel like I can understand his thought process and it seems genuine. He's pushing on people, he doesn't seem lazy or BS'ing, etc. Town lean, limited by "it's early D1 and he hasn't really posted all that much yet"
Sayaka - not quite as sure for her. She has opinions and isn't afraid to share them, and I feel like she's sharing enough of her thought process that I can eventually sort her (not there yet though). I'm curious what she thinks of Lowell after his more recent BS, as well as everything else that has happened since she was last here.
Texcat - her posts feel... light. On content, on meaning, on depth. Her 255 basically made the same argument as I later did in 326 but without really getting into WHY A50's bandwagon-hopping seemed like a problem. I also really don't get her 265. Reason #1 is posted along with an "oh wait nevermind", and reason #2 seems quickly contradicted by 275. And the whole thing was "lol jk" by 314. Nothing even close to a smoking gun here IMO, but I also see nothing particularly confidence building and I don't mind more pressure on this slot.
PS I'm also not sure why 271 is true. Obviously if you tunnel someone for a really long period of time ignoring everything else, that can be problematic, but I'd like to think that tunneling in reasonable quantities can be a good thing. Invest in a case, build it, see where it takes you, and get to a point where you have a more meaningful read, and everyone else has the data they need. Why am I wrong?
PPS Boon is moving down my list from his last few posts. I'm not happy with him right now.-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
@Boon: give me a reason to doubt the Lowell lynch. "Bad feelings" isn't doing it for me. Is there scum on this wagon? Are a bunch of townies just wrong? Convince me (or everyone else) if you're feeling really bad about the lynch. If it's helpful, current voters are (I think):
Garmr, knightmare, Almost50, chilledtea, mhsmith0
and Sakura Hana was on for a while and is now back off.
That's six people who are really down on Lowell. Maybe one of us is BS'ing a weak or insincere case? Is there a "you look sincere but here's why your reasons are wrong" case to be made? I don't need you to tell me right this second; if it takes some time for you to figure it out that's fine. But "bad feelings" is not an acceptable answer for me. Too much room for scum to sneak their way out of a wagon they know is bad, or to try and derail a wagon they know is good, without really having to commit to putting any rationale down.-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 407, Expedience wrote:Goodlordwill and I are both town.
Because...? Of 122/3 or is there more?-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 413, Boonskiies wrote:In post 405, mhsmith0 wrote:Boon has stated that he "has bad feelings" about this "easy lynch". If he hammers then he's flagrantly full of shit.
As for me, I think it's the right lynch. I'm not leaving just because boon or someone else may randomly do something stupid.
To be fair, I've hammered after saying worse as town.
In post 418, Boonskiies wrote:In post 401, Expedience wrote:If he's really at L-1, I suggest one of you idiots unvote or Boon may hammer.
I mean, I've already stated why this is crap. Expidence is leaning scum for me. If Lowell does end up flipping scum, might be worth looking into as a last resort bus/trying to derail it a little. TownLowell I'd probably start town reading Exp from that, though.
Walk me through how exp is scum for this given 413. You're explicitly admitting his "boon may dumb hammer" point is correct!-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 425, Boonskiies wrote:I don't think your reasoning is bad or anything. Just noting behavior.
VOTE: texcat
@mhs - I posted when he was at L-1. I would have done it, no second thoughts. I posted my hammer line I say with every hammer I do too. "Did someone say L-1?" That is the post I always hammer with. And I didn't.
Hmm, fair enough. Then again I've never played with any of you. So I'm ok for now holding it as an explicit intent to vote/hammer.
And to clarify: I WILL revote Lowell unless persuaded otherwise, likely in about 24 hours. Even if it's a hammer. Even if Lowell decides he has better things to do than defend himself. Official warning given.-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
1) would you be willing to policy lynch a dumb hammer?
2) if not, then isn't it better to make sure people have a chance to weigh in?
Ps Madonna put us back at l1 and has expressed clear preference for quick hammer. We may well see a quick hammer yet.
PPS in case you can't tell, I don't love gambits generally or am much good at them. Eventually that may change as I get experience, but the idea of policy lynching a dumb town quick hammer on day two makes me uncomfortable. Especially since I think we already have some idea of what Lowell's flip might tell us.-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
@exp: you may well be right about things going overly fast. Otoh we sure do seem to be getting strong takes on the matter with it suddenly turning into crunch time.
Ps @mod: updated vote count please
PPS I may be a dumb hammer. But I'm not a dumb quick hammer (which is what I thought you were primarily getting at). 24 hours is plenty of time I think. Especially since I honestly believe in the lynch. I'm willing to take d2 heat for it if I'm wrong. My reasoning is explicit and I believe in it.-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 455, Expedience wrote:Because "oh we should quickhammer this guy because other people are scumreading him" is absolutely terrible.
+1-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 458, Madonna wrote:To be clear, I do not care for this wagon, but if you guys are so convinced of your arguments, well, here is your chance to put your vote where your feelings are. L-1 is not just for pressuring the lynch candidate. I do not mind settling the wagon's read.
"Fuck it I don't care who we lynch today"
Wow.-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 462, Boonskiies wrote:In post 450, Expedience wrote:You do realize that we have currently used 2.5 days out of the 14 that we have available?
I'm not usually one to highly value day time, but this is fucking ridiculous.
I don't have strong feelings about Lowell being scum, in general I'm lost and really would like to use more of the time.
To be fair, we are a very active group, and I believe we've accomplished much more in these two days than most do in ten.
I can think of one relevant comparison where you're correct-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 465, Madonna wrote:
...
I do appreciate people waiting for his claim before lynching him, but I do not think he needs this pressure.
So you don't want him pressured but you're fine with him dead? I... I don't even know where to start engaging this logic.