Open 871 - The Haunted Village | Postgame

[Saihara Shuichi]

No they don't because the value assigned is not clarified in any significant way

Do you know what decisive means? When something is decisive, there is no room for hypothetical or random events. Yet we can see by his post alone that his thoughts are often littered with both.

You're conflating the idea of having reads with them being completely set in stone and devoid of nuance

idk is not a very nuanced take

[Saihara Shuichi]

Please point out the nuance in bianco's reads for me

[furtiveglance]

Please point out the nuance in bianco's reads for me

You literally quoted a nuanced read on STD

Do you know what nuanced means

[Saihara Shuichi]

What about saying he doesn't know is nuanced, that is deliberately not making a stance one way or the other

It's the antithesis of nuance lmfao

[furtiveglance]

20: you already know what I think of this. +scum.

38: a bit defensive, idk if that was warranted. I'm gonna give this a 0.25+scum.

42: this and the following are nulls. I don't know why exactly STD had to remark in #43 that #42 was stilted, I don't think it particularly was and I don't get the need to excuse oneself even if it was, but I don't want to read to much into it.

76: idk, I don't agree with this vote. While I don't agree with Kyoko's criticism of me either, that seemed to me an honest attempt to scumhunt. Scumreading them over "being too nitpicky" with that (cfr #91, #92) seems a little forced. +0.5scum

90: of this post I like how my TR is apparently, cfr 94, not set in stone. It was not actually challenged afterwards, hough one must assume that if #76 were genuine than the TR on me probably is too. The Kaito TR is also reasonable.

132--141, 179: I'm ignoring meta posts rn, at least possibly until I find the will to go read games.

144: eh, the question is legitimate. +town

157: eh, this one I like less, falls somewhere in the category of asking about own SRs. Though I'm giving STD some slack for it.

159, 165: gut readings are fine, especially this early. Fuyuhiko apparently doesn't like that, and that may be reasonable, I just don't agree that's particularly AI at this point.

180: I genuinely didn't understand this post. Does what? @STD, I'm not trying to be an ass or anything, I would just like a clarification. I'm guessing it is trivially linked to 183?
Btw, 183 seem like a genuine attempt to workshop, I'm giving it +0.25 town.

191: while I also find #38 distasteful, this response to Kokichi is credible. I guess it could be construed as attempting to negate all further attempts at using meta to read him, which idk if I like. +0.25scum.

total: 0.75+scum

Please point out a decisive read on StD here

None of these points say idk

[Saihara Shuichi]

20: you already know what I think of this. +scum.

38: a bit defensive,

idk

if that was warranted. I'm gonna give this a 0.25+scum.

42: this and the following are nulls. I don't know why exactly STD had to remark in #43 that #42 was stilted, I don't think it particularly was and I don't get the need to excuse oneself even if it was, but I don't want to read to much into it.

76:

idk

, I don't agree with this vote. While I don't agree with Kyoko's criticism of me either, that seemed to me an honest attempt to scumhunt. Scumreading them over "being too nitpicky" with that (cfr #91, #92) seems a little forced. +0.5scum

90: of this post I like how my TR is apparently, cfr 94, not set in stone. It was not actually challenged afterwards, hough one must assume that if #76 were genuine than the TR on me probably is too. The Kaito TR is also reasonable.

132--141, 179: I'm ignoring meta posts rn, at least possibly until I find the will to go read games.

144: eh, the question is legitimate. +town

157: eh, this one I like less, falls somewhere in the category of asking about own SRs. Though I'm giving STD some slack for it.

159, 165: gut readings are fine, especially this early. Fuyuhiko apparently doesn't like that, and that may be reasonable, I just don't agree that's particularly AI at this point.

180: I genuinely didn't understand this post. Does what? @STD, I'm not trying to be an ass or anything, I would just like a clarification. I'm guessing it is trivially linked to 183?
Btw, 183 seem like a genuine attempt to workshop, I'm giving it +0.25 town.

191: while I also find #38 distasteful, this response to Kokichi is credible. I guess it could be construed as attempting to negate all further attempts at using meta to read him, which

idk

if I like. +0.25scum.

total: 0.75+scum

Please point out a decisive read on StD here

None of these points say idk

You were saying

[furtiveglance]

That's clearly just a turn of phrase. In 2 of the examples they're saying "idk if I like that" or equivalent

[Saihara Shuichi]

So if they don't know then how is it decisive

[Saihara Shuichi]

An expression can be indecisive

This is noted by his usage of idk

I'm glad we agree

[Saihara Shuichi]

I hope you realize that I'm not trying to say using idk is scummy

I'm asking you to consider if it sounds like he's just making shit up

[furtiveglance]

That's clearly just a turn of phrase. In 2 of the examples they're saying "idk if I like that" or equivalent

So if they don't know then how is it decisive

Idk if I like that = I don't like that

If this whole time you were just arguing about the semantics of how bianco expresses themself then we wasted a lot of time

Objectively speaking they've given a lot of nuanced opinions about every other player in the game, which can't be said for anyone else

[furtiveglance]

I hope you realize that I'm not trying to say using idk is scummy

I'm asking you to consider if it sounds like he's just making shit up

I have considered it

[Saihara Shuichi]

Please consider it harder

[furtiveglance]

Please consider it harder

Anime joke

The consideration is continuous, as with every slot

[Saihara Shuichi]

65: it's possible I'm just dumb, but this post doesn't make any sense to me? There were not two competing equivalent wagons, mine was already the largest and not tied with anyone. +0.25scum.
Also I resent the implication that my user is difficult >:(

67: uhm. Noncommital, but idk how much to read into it.

135: I mean, the wiki says that buzzword is a buzzword. Though I'm willing to actually give this and 137 +0.5town, this is a gut feeling but it's just that it seems to me it is quite to brazen for a scum.

total: +0.25town

The nuance is fucking overwhelming me

[Saihara Shuichi]

People really don't read posts anymore it's just yep that looks good and nuanced

[Saihara Shuichi]

Gnight

[furtiveglance]

Here's what I'm considering more strongly at the moment

He suggested kicking me out to add in Shuichi. How much stock do you think I put into Gimli’s towncore? It’s more flimsy than a tower of twigs!
Gimli is an immediate suspect. I don’t put much stock into this Kaito townread business myself. Third could be someone like furtive or Maki.

???

Do you scumread Kaito? I’m getting townvibes from both of those slots: furtive, Maki.

But neither of them are townreading Kaito so not following?

So why is Maki scum rather than just wrong on you and same question also to me, obviously?

I think you fail to understand that was meant as my idea for who’s scum if you’re town. I think if your town Maki is potentially manipulating you. Kaito I thought was meh, he’s at least okay now that he’s given some more incisive commentary.

Furtive I still don’t entirely trust from his weird call to stop mech spec when he was the only one to do it plus his weird interest in the number of alts

. I think I’ve kinda established my thought process on Gimli already but to be specific, I think he’s trying to mudsling a fair amount here.

Look at Fuyuhiko's reason for a 'scumread' on me. 1) All I did was establish the probable numbers of points in play, and say that was all that needed to be said. 2) I mentioned it once, it hasn't affected my reads. This looks extremely flimsy and it looks like he's trying to tie me to Gimli by appealing to the level 1 logic of voting together = mafia together

I think {furtive, Maki, Wednesday, Gimli} holds 2-3 scum

VOTE: furtiveglance
This, Gimli, and Maki is my solve as of this moment.

Again, same thing with me and Gimli and I don't know why Maki is in there. Probably trying to widen the group scumpool by including a relative/near UTR.

[Wednesday Addams]

65: it's possible I'm just dumb, but this post doesn't make any sense to me? There were not two competing equivalent wagons, mine was already the largest and not tied with anyone. +0.25scum.
Also I resent the implication that my user is difficult >:(

67: uhm. Noncommital, but idk how much to read into it.

135: I mean, the wiki says that buzzword is a buzzword. Though I'm willing to actually give this and 137 +0.5town, this is a gut feeling but it's just that it seems to me it is quite to brazen for a scum.

total: +0.25town

The nuance is fucking overwhelming me

It’s possible Bianco could be scum here.

UNVOTE:

for now. Very glad gladiate isn’t a thing.

[Wednesday Addams]

Think Suichi is really town. @Bianco, can you explain why you’re doing this percentage thing and can you link any other games where you’ve done it before? I would check but the new formatting only lists users’ posts not topics so is a bitch to figure out.

[Gimli]

Phrasing like "idk if it was warranted" = "I don't think/agree/believe it was warranted". You're too focused on the idea that saying idk necessarily means not saying anything.

As to the bianco scumreads in the game I suppose they have merit but this discussion Shuichi and furtive are having won't help

[Saihara Shuichi]

Missing the point entirely

Furtive is probably town though so it wasn't all a waste

[Saihara Shuichi]

Kyoko/Furtive/Kokichi are my townreads

Kaito dropped down a bit, but still lean

PP/Maki still null

Wednesday/Gimli/StD below null but not where I'd vote

Would vote Fuyu/Bianco

[Saihara Shuichi]

N_M is vigbait

[Maki Harukawa]

- 0.75 Saihara

+0.6 Furt

+ 0.2 Oma