Mini Normal 1888 - TwoFace Mafia - Game Over
-
-
Barleycorn
-
-
Barleycorn Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 393
- Joined: February 19, 2017
and you're not voting mozamis because?In post 18, DogWatch wrote:
This looks like something I would have written the very first time I ever played scumIn post 12, mozamis wrote:Lets all be out in the open as possible as town and screw scum over!-
-
Barleycorn Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 393
- Joined: February 19, 2017
no he's notIn post 21, aronagrundy wrote:
well he's voting for eddie cane which is a good reasonIn post 19, Barleycorn wrote:
and you're not voting mozamis because?In post 18, DogWatch wrote:
This looks like something I would have written the very first time I ever played scumIn post 12, mozamis wrote:Lets all be out in the open as possible as town and screw scum over!-
-
Barleycorn Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 393
- Joined: February 19, 2017
it seems disingenuous to fos someone while voting your rvs vote.In post 27, DogWatch wrote:
it was an fos.. just had a look at his demeanor from past games and it seems about the same, prob not a newbscum tellIn post 19, Barleycorn wrote:
and you're not voting mozamis because?In post 18, DogWatch wrote:
This looks like something I would have written the very first time I ever played scumIn post 12, mozamis wrote:Lets all be out in the open as possible as town and screw scum over!
mozamis doesn't feel reactionary to me. they feel something else.In post 30, DogWatch wrote:dude I JUST admitted you probably weren't noob scum like I originally read, and you're going to call me opportunist? This feels very reactionary, like an omgus-
-
Barleycorn Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 393
- Joined: February 19, 2017
this was your first explicit reason for voting fire.In post 50, aronagrundy wrote:That said, dog's resistance to the fire wagon makes me want to vote fire so
VOTE: fire
this is the second reason you vote fire.In post 54, aronagrundy wrote: I also never said dog was scum. I've wanted to start a wagon and felt like fucking with him
fire's point seems to be that neither reason logically supports your fire vote. do you disagree?
personally, i fail to see how fucking with dogwatch is a reason to vote fire.
what is your point, arona? that you don't like fire's reaction to your vote? what don't you like about it? it's possible that 60 goes into this but it's incredibly unclear.
arona is obfuscating in this conversation. but i don't know if it's intentional.-
-
Barleycorn Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 393
- Joined: February 19, 2017
my question is riffing off this, what is the reaction from fire that you don't like?In post 58, aronagrundy wrote:I wasn't pretending to be looking for reactions-
-
Barleycorn Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 393
- Joined: February 19, 2017
In post 49, aronagrundy wrote:
Well it was more of a gut feeling, but then when mozamis didn't follow through it became an empty post when it shouldn't have been.In post 34, NorskaBlue wrote:
How's that? Transcend mentioned four people (two FoS, two tr) but only voted for one. What rings hollow about him wanting to find out the others? And what is suspicious about empty posts? I'm not saying they're good, but this early in the game, it can be a bit tricky to provide any useful content.In post 32, aronagrundy wrote:Because like transcend is probably voting one of his suspects so the question kind of rang hollow for me and then mozamis just doesn't follow through?? I guess I just feel like it's an empty post
i don't get this progression in the context of your fire vote being to fish for reactions.In post 50, aronagrundy wrote:That said, dog's resistance to the fire wagon makes me want to vote fire so
VOTE: fire
were you scumreading fire at the time of 50? were you scumreading mozamis at the time of 50?
VOTE: arona-
-
Barleycorn Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 393
- Joined: February 19, 2017
just clarifying, was this sarcastic?In post 48, Shadow_step wrote:
Concerned townie much?In post 44, DogWatch wrote:Fire has three votes now with zero reasoning behind them. Can the three of you explain? We're getting out of the rvs stage at this point. Which reminds me to remove my random vote UNVOTE:-
-
Barleycorn Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 393
- Joined: February 19, 2017
what questions has dogwatch ignored?In post 71, Shadow_step wrote:**ignores every question asked to it**-
-
Barleycorn Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 393
- Joined: February 19, 2017
so you think scum!dogwatch was trying to look like a concerned townieIn post 74, Shadow_step wrote:No it wasn't.
It's trying to show that he's being pro town by asking a bunch of people as to why they are RVS voting Fire. Being on 3 votes is nothing. It's L-4, what's the big deal?-
-
Barleycorn Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 393
- Joined: February 19, 2017
it looked rhetorical. are you saying that you wanted dogwatch to answer the question: "concerned townie much?"In post 76, Shadow_step wrote:
You just quoted it in your previous post.In post 73, Barleycorn wrote:
what questions has dogwatch ignored?In post 71, Shadow_step wrote:**ignores every question asked to it**
how would one answer that anyway?-
-
Barleycorn Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 393
- Joined: February 19, 2017
that is a different discussion. i am trying to figure out what shadow meant by 48. he has implied so far that it was a question he wanted dogwatch to answer, but also that it was a statement about dogwatch's alignment.In post 83, FireScreamer wrote:
Also I thought we have covered already that a desire to appear townie also has incentives for actual townies and is therefor a null tell.In post 79, Barleycorn wrote:
so you think scum!dogwatch was trying to look like a concerned townieIn post 74, Shadow_step wrote:No it wasn't.
It's trying to show that he's being pro town by asking a bunch of people as to why they are RVS voting Fire. Being on 3 votes is nothing. It's L-4, what's the big deal?-
-
Barleycorn Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 393
- Joined: February 19, 2017
ok. it was not clear until now that this was the purpose of that question, which by all appearances was rhetorical.In post 86, Shadow_step wrote: By why is he asking reasons for rvs votes ? What is the point of asking reasons for RVS votes ? How does one person being on 3 votes on day 1 such a big deal?
i would like to see dogwatch's response.-
-
Barleycorn Goon
-
-
Barleycorn Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 393
- Joined: February 19, 2017
an off-topic post and an antagonizing one.In post 91, FireScreamer wrote:
Specify how. I should probably be cleaning up the quote pyramids I guess.In post 89, Barleycorn wrote:fire, stop mucking up the thread please.-
-
Barleycorn Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 393
- Joined: February 19, 2017
-
-
Barleycorn Goon
-
-
Barleycorn Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 393
- Joined: February 19, 2017
this one i'm curious about. why?
-
-
Barleycorn Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 393
- Joined: February 19, 2017
genuine anger at shadow's tone = town mindset? could it not have been genuine, but still bolstered scum!eddie's vote?In post 157, Keyser Söze wrote:
Bad vote.In post 120, aronagrundy wrote:VOTE: eddie cane
His case on shadow seems opportunistic. And he basically just repeats what others have said.
I consolidate the suspicions of other players to strengthen my own stance on a player.
Eddie Cane's anger felt genuine.
even subtracting the fact that eddie is voting shadow because shadow did something eddie sees as anti-town, rather than eddie actually thinking shadow is scum.-
-
Barleycorn Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 393
- Joined: February 19, 2017
hm, i checked to make sure this was true and realized i misinterpreted this.In post 159, Barleycorn wrote: even subtracting the fact that eddie is voting shadow because shadow did something eddie sees as anti-town, rather than eddie actually thinking shadow is scum.
i don't hate eddie's shadow vote.-
-
Barleycorn Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 393
- Joined: February 19, 2017
would you still think this is ai if it were the case that eddie has done something similar before?In post 135, mozamis wrote:
this looks really self conscious and trying-too-hard. I'm happy with my Dog vote, but you're next on the Moz list.In post 134, Eddie Cane wrote:you should probably vote me over fire though as I did take his argument.-
-
Barleycorn Goon
-
-
Barleycorn Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 393
- Joined: February 19, 2017
-
-
Barleycorn Goon
-
-
Barleycorn Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 393
- Joined: February 19, 2017
-
-
Barleycorn Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 393
- Joined: February 19, 2017
okayIn post 175, Keyser Söze wrote:
I am currently on this page as part of my catch-up.In post 173, Barleycorn wrote:i like transcend and want to sheep him. i don't like reading keyser's posts and get little from them when i do. i also don't like that keyser didn't interact with my 159
I will 'interact' with you as part of my natural catch-up.
I have not ignored anything/anyone so far.
weird meaning when i read it, i didn't understand your motivations. that other people have talked about it doesn't change this.In post 176, Keyser Söze wrote:
"Weird"?In post 174, Barleycorn wrote:keyser's interaction with dog was weird. everyone reading really far into dog's reaction to the fire wagon is weird.
I think my analysis on that was explicit and insightful thank you very much.
Lot's of dialogue has been expressed on dog's reaction/fire's wagon, so me sharing my own stance on it is not "weird" or irrational.
what conclusions have you drawn from that conversation about dog's alignment?-
-
Barleycorn Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 393
- Joined: February 19, 2017
who in {moz, keyser, arona, (maybe?)shadow} do you think is scum, if any?In post 177, DogWatch wrote:
mountain made out of a mole hillIn post 174, Barleycorn wrote:keyser's interaction with dog was weird. everyone reading really far into dog's reaction to the fire wagon is weird.-
-
Barleycorn Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 393
- Joined: February 19, 2017
:/In post 181, DogWatch wrote:I need to go back through moz and aronas ISO, but out of that group, I'd say one of them.
i was looking for something closer to a name.-
-
Barleycorn
-
-
Barleycorn
-
-
Barleycorn Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 393
- Joined: February 19, 2017
-
-
Barleycorn Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 393
- Joined: February 19, 2017
-
-
Barleycorn Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 393
- Joined: February 19, 2017
would you agree that this is different than what you said in 189?In post 191, Eddie Cane wrote:I don't know. I don't know town!dog or scum!dog. to me it looks like something that a new scum could do to get town cred by looking like they're dissecting voting though.-
-
Barleycorn Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 393
- Joined: February 19, 2017
i wasn't asking you to speculate meta.In post 194, Eddie Cane wrote:you're asking me to speculate the meta of someone who hasn't played in 9 years. o.o
what do you mean by different? I think you're interpreting my posts differently than I intended.
in 189 you said there was an inconsistency between dog's saying he doesn't get rvs, and saying that we had left rvs. i don't think that's really an inconsistency though. he said he thought we had left rvs, and when people informed him that the fire votes were standard looking rvs votes, he said that he didn't get rvs.
so, i asked you if you would take the same conclusion from dog's quotes if you knew that dog believed any wagon signaled the end of rvs.
then you made a new and different point that dog's reaction to the fire wagon could be scum trying to get towncred for analyzing voting.-
-
Barleycorn Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 393
- Joined: February 19, 2017
-
-
Barleycorn Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 393
- Joined: February 19, 2017
i understand the case. i'll ask you again - would you agree that you made a different case in 189?In post 198, Eddie Cane wrote:In post 44, DogWatch wrote:Fire has three votes now with zero reasoning behind them. Can the three of you explain? We're getting out of the rvs stage at this point. Which reminds me to remove my random vote UNVOTE:
I think we agree dog doesn't understand Rvs. my interpretation is that his initial post is potentially trying to appear like he's contributing to discussion while not actually taking any sort of stance. he clearly doesn't get rvs, so immediately attacking a small wagon that formed during rvs could be "oh, lemme defend this wagon, their votes are all naked so they won't have a case and I'll look good".In post 152, DogWatch wrote:I played on a small site back in 2007-2008. Haven't played since. RVS wasn't a thing. Random questions were usually how we started, but I read some games on this site and it looks like RQS is an instant scum read which blows my mind. I don't really know how to play on this site yet. I'm used to games based around night decisions/analysis, items, numerous power roles, crazy gimmicks, etc. This site just looks like endless day phase squabbling to me.
If there's nothing weird about those three fire votes in the context of this site , I'm cool with that. I just didn't interpret it that way at the time.
I have an eight hour drive ahead of me, so I'll be back on later tonight/early tomorrow.
and yes, that's not the strongest case on the world, remember dog is only slightly on the scum side for me.-
-
Barleycorn Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 393
- Joined: February 19, 2017
189 - dogwatch said we're out of rvs, but then he said he doesn't get rvs. this is inconsistent.
case 2 - scum!dogwatch, not getting rvs, thought he could get towncred by jumping on what he saw as 3 unsupported and therefore bad votes.
i am annoyed that you don't see these as distinct. or is my interpretation of your 189 incorrect?In post 189, Eddie Cane wrote:In post 30, DogWatch wrote:dude I JUST admitted you probably weren't noob scum like I originally read, and you're going to call me opportunist? This feels very reactionary, like an omgus
the second doesn't make much sense when he later posts that his previous site doesn't use rvs, it's implying that he understands rvs ("were getting out atp") while at the same time later saying he doesn't get rvs.In post 44, DogWatch wrote:Fire has three votes now with zero reasoning behind them. Can the three of you explain? We're getting out of the rvs stage at this point. Which reminds me to remove my random vote UNVOTE:-
-
Barleycorn Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 393
- Joined: February 19, 2017
i know this and i am pretty sure eddie knows this.In post 206, DogWatch wrote:It's NOT inconsistent. I said I thought we were getting out of RVS, but when I got corrected on that, I admitted I didn't understand RVS as well as I thought I did. There's no inconsistency there.-
-
Barleycorn Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 393
- Joined: February 19, 2017
you are giving me head pains.
in 188 i ask you where your scum lean of dog comes from.
in 189 you tell me it's (in part) because dog said we were out of rvs, but then said he didn't get rvs, which doesn't make sense according to you. the other parts of the scum lean are his interaction with shadow and his use of trigger words.
interjection - why is a new player using 'trigger words' scum indicative?
in 190 i ask an unclear question that's basically hinting that there was no inconsistency in dog's play. i revise this question in 197.
in 191 you come up with anewcase that bypasses my question. then in 194 you bypass my question again by incorrectly saying I was asking you to do meta analysis.
the two points i've made that you seem not to understand are -
1. that the case you make starting from 191 is absent in 189 and
2. that there is a distinct case in 189 that i asked you about, and that you subsequently abandoned
work with me to figure this out or i'm voting you.-
-
Barleycorn Goon
-
-
Barleycorn Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 393
- Joined: February 19, 2017
you said this already in 206, why are you repeating it?In post 212, DogWatch wrote: you are way too hung up on this, there is no inconsistency and barley has been trying to drill this into your head
Also it would be great if everyone could refer to me by the correct pronoun
and will do re: pronoun.-
-
Barleycorn Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 393
- Joined: February 19, 2017
-
-
Barleycorn Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 393
- Joined: February 19, 2017
what do you think about our interaction from 189-now?In post 217, mozamis wrote:In post 162, Barleycorn wrote:would you still think this is ai if it were the case that eddie has done something similar before
if he were town when he did it, i guess not.
It just has that scvummy feel about it ("go on, vote me, i dont care, i'm sao fucking tiwn, oh he wifom! etc)
its not a definte tell, obv (is there such a thing?). But worth a Fos.-
-
Barleycorn Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 393
- Joined: February 19, 2017
why can't gut be the honest basis for transcend's read of kaiser?In post 219, FireScreamer wrote:
You are not going to get 6 other people to agree with Gut. You know this and are not trying. Which means you are putting on a show and I wonder why.In post 161, Transcend wrote:Gut-
-
Barleycorn
-
-
Barleycorn Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 393
- Joined: February 19, 2017
the fear is that someone else has the same gut read. which is literally what happened.In post 224, FireScreamer wrote:
How so? What is to be feared of a vote based on intuition which is by its very nature non transferable?In post 223, Barleycorn wrote:it does create pressure.
why do you scumread dog?-
-
Barleycorn Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 393
- Joined: February 19, 2017
this is very lazyIn post 226, FireScreamer wrote:Going from calling out LAMIST to being LAMIST seems like an odd progression as the first two things you do in a game. I read looking for reasoning on me as an attempt to garner my favour as really it doesn't do much else.
explain how dog was lamist
also explain why you scum lean eddie-
-
Barleycorn Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 393
- Joined: February 19, 2017
-
-
Barleycorn Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 393
- Joined: February 19, 2017
okay
i think you're missing a lot in your lazinessIn post 227, Barleycorn wrote: explain how dog was lamist-
-
Barleycorn Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 393
- Joined: February 19, 2017
dog scumread someone for asking for reasoning behind rvs votes?In post 233, FireScreamer wrote:I'm certainly pretty tired tonight i'll give you that. Asking for reasoning behind RVS votes is about looking like you are trying to find a solution. It is about appearances. Generally I don't mind that for reasons i've previously stated. However when you've already shown that you scumread it in other people then it becomes interesting.-
-
Barleycorn Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 393
- Joined: February 19, 2017
hmm.
yes or no question
do you believe that in 189 said you scum lean dog based on an argument resembling this:
1. dog said she thought rvs was over
2. later dog said she didn't understand rvs
3. declaring rvs over requires understanding of rvs
c. this is a scummy inconsistency/something doesn't add up-
-
Barleycorn Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 393
- Joined: February 19, 2017
@mod transcend is on both keyser and eddie in your vc
i wouldn't say transcend made up massive resistance. dog explicitly townreads keyser, fire explicitly townreads keyser, and despite many players townreading me they don't want to sheep the keyser wagon. there's definitely resistance, so you'd only be disagreeing with the word massive
VC fixed-
-
Barleycorn Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 393
- Joined: February 19, 2017
ok. then, for the third time, would you agree that this (189) is a different point than the one you made in 191?In post 242, Eddie Cane wrote:that was the second point there basically. so, I guess your answer is yes.
i scum lean you because you made a case to support what you said was your scum lean on dog, i showed there was (at least one) issue with it, and then you made a new case. i am willing to believe the new case was your genuine thoughts on dog and not something you made up once you realized your scum lean was deteriorating, i think you've proved that in our exchange. but i do need you to acknowledge that they're two different cases.-
-
Barleycorn Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 393
- Joined: February 19, 2017
i think my pressure on eddie would have been good if he were actually scum. but reading our exchange again i think he genuinely thought from the very beginning that his two cases on dog were actually one case. this goes against my suspicion that he realized his original case was NAI and made up a new one to support his scum lean.
i think eddie is town and i wonder why transcend is voting him.
pedit: oh i see. that post is really vague. you were basically saying what i am thinking now? which is that you believed both cases from the beginning and the timing of your posts was not connected to my question in 190.-
-
Barleycorn Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 393
- Joined: February 19, 2017
-
-
Barleycorn Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 393
- Joined: February 19, 2017
i'm not sure how you think "this thing is strange" implies "this thing is scum indicative for this specific reason i am only saying now"In post 282, Eddie Cane wrote:in all honesty I'm still not seeing what you're saying entirely. 191 was in reply to 190, but I didn't really see it as a seperate argument, I thought 189 implied it.-
-
Barleycorn Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 393
- Joined: February 19, 2017
holy ****In post 285, Eddie Cane wrote:the post was directly in reply to you asking why he's a slight scum lean for me.
189 was in direct reply. but what was contained in 189 was a bad argument. 190 was my question about that bad argument. 191 is your response. 191 is not a bad argument but it is a different argument.
if you still disagree with this i am going to leave it because, again, i believe you did not make up 191 after i asked 190, and if 284 doesn't get my dissonance across nothing will. if both of these are true this conversation has little point.-
-
Barleycorn Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 393
- Joined: February 19, 2017
what was this case?In post 286, Keyser Söze wrote:or oppose the scum-case on me.-
-
Barleycorn
-
-
Barleycorn Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 393
- Joined: February 19, 2017
any specific town motivated posts, or just a feeling?In post 290, Transcend wrote:i think mozamis is town and wonder why barley is voting him
-
-
-
-
-