Mini 1064 - Charlie's Town (Game Over!)

[q21]

/confirm

[q21]

Yeah, means the town's lucky enough to play with two schizo slots instead of just one.

[q21]

I was in one of your ongoing games Reck...

[q21]

Vote: q21

because I do not like green eggs and ham.

If this is supposed to make sense... I'm lost. If not... AWESOME!


Either way... OMGUS!
VOTE: FakeGOd

[q21]

I don't know... here let me help.

VOTE: RichardGHP

YAY! WAGON!

[q21]

Haha guessing, fine. "DERP DERP NO EXPLANATION VOTE OMG SOMEONE QUESTIONED ME DEFENDING SCUM HERP LOLOLOL"

That pretty much sums it up yes?

Close, but not quite. I'll explain later. BTW, this post is scummy too.

Personally, I hate this "I'll explain later" crap. If you have a point, make it.

[q21]

Some comments

-snip-
The purpose of the reasonless vote and giving reasons later was because I wanted to see how people reacted and what sort of actions they took in response before they knew the reasons. For example, I am thinking FakeGod is scum based on his response to my vote for Shotty.

The snipped part of this post is generic rationalisation and is neither here nor there at this point in the game. The quoted section is bad, not scummy, but bad. A reasonless RVS vote is a poor reaction trigger because the reaction you're going to get is almost invariably the question: "Why?"

@Casus, in order:

1. I'm fairly certain I'm protected against self-incrimination by the 5th amendment.

2. I think it's fair to say that RVS was still in play, so elements of that, plus self-preservation (necessary during RVS). Trust me, every member in this game will do the latter at some point. Shotty has not done a lot, if anything, to make me think he is or could be scum at this stage.

3. If Nacho makes a post that I think I townie would make, I'll consider unvoting him. Not necessarily a scumtell, per se, but I know Nacho to have a pro-town meta and suspect he would have some insight to offer by now. Note that he also has the "third on the wagon is scum" tell that I've heard about working against him, on one of my townreads no less.

1. This is not the USA. There are no amendments to protect you from anything. This is mafia and refusal to comment on a fairly significant wagon on yourself is scummy - especially since the above quote infers that any comment you could make would incriminate you. I'd quite like to know what that comment might have been.
2. Be honest. There was no RVS in there, it was all self-preservation.
3. Meh.

@Substrike - Those reasons for voting me are very bad.
FakeGod - Where's my vote? My vote is on somebody else I suspect. Where's your contributions?
Casus Belli - I suspected FakeGod's reaction to the vote not because it was a reasonless vote, but because he ignored my vote for Shotty.

I'm not too impressed with Casus Belli or Nachomamma. Casus Bellis asks lots of questions and gave absolutely no reads/votes.

The suspicion of Nacomamma is because he voted me for my case against Shotty (post 61) but in post 79 he says he hadn't read the post.

How could he have voted me for a post he hadn't read? What exactly was wrong with it? In addition, the vote switch looks odd... especially when he voted me (for voting Shotty) and then switched to Shotty anyway. I could see either of those two being scum, but I

do

currently have quite a few scumreads at the moment.

Response to Shotty coming up next.

In response to the bolded, try reading 71 more closely:

Now, normally I don't bother to read walls of text in the first 5 pages of a game (61, 63), since they're normally just filled with overthought, terrible reason that only hit scum by virtue of sheer luck,

but things stood out to me in these walls, so I read them through.

-snip-

The bolded here quite clearly states that he did read them. Now the question is: Are you careless enough that you didn't notice that, or are you scum trying to force some suspicion on the back of an incorrect reason? I'm not sure yet.

As for taking votes away from him, he was at what 4? That's over halfway to lynch, you wouldn't want your scum-friend getting caught by a stupid RVS wagon, so of course you would try to shift focus if the two of you were buddies. I believe you're behavior was taking the pressure off of GHP, RVS or not I don't really see how that gives you an excuse.

Oh please! Keep in mind my vote had no reasons. You can't possibly think I was expecting to start a bandwagon on you.

Well actually, the very fact that your vote was reasonless gives Shotty every right to ascribe to it whatever reason makes most sense to him. He can think what he likes and his thought isn't all that bad.

[q21]

Ok, so having read over everything, including some walls of text that, for being 7 pages into D1, make my eyes bleed, I am inclined to say that at least one of Shotty vs. masfloovinev is scum. There is naturally potential that they're both scum, though I'm less inclined to believe it. On a pureply gut level, I think that mas is at this point more likely to be scum. His reactions seem a bit over the top to be purely town. Part of this comes simply from the fact that I know Shotty's playstyle better, but every time someone shuts down one of mas's arguments, he seems to get more and more agitated. The only motivation that I can see for this is cornered scum.

FoS: Masfloovinev

.

I'd like to point out a direct contradiction at this point. Here you state that you feel that Mas is scummier than Shotty - despite the fact that you claim the reason is purely gut, you do actually give a half-decent reason for viewing Mas as scummier. My problem arises from the fact that you only FoS Mas and you leave your vote sitting right where it was: Shotty.

VOTE: jmurph
Much more interesting than voting Richard.

q21 tries to distance himself, but within the same post, fails to do so:

Please explain, I don't recall trying to distance from anything.
As for how closely Shotty and I are playing at this point - the possibility of Shotty buddying up has occurred to me, but I'm incline to believe that we're a pair of townies who have been linked by mas's reasonless vote on one and then an immediate jump to a reasonless vote on the other.

q21 -

1. I disagree with your comments regarding my post. Concerning the reasonless vote for Shotty, you say that it is likely I'll get the response "Why?", but I have already gotten two much more telling reactions than that. Shotty responded by trying to laugh it off and FakeGod responded by ignoring it. If Shotty does flip scum later, than these reactions will be very helpful for determining his buddies. You are underestimating the power of reactions.

2. I could ask you the same thing. Why don't you pay attention:

Because that was an overly long post for page 4, and

I figured

it was chock-full of reaching as a result.

I thought Nachomamma had not read my post based on what he said in 79 and I was right when Nachomamma clearly states here that he hadn't. If he had read my post when he voted me, then why would he have had to make guesses about what was in it?

3. The reason for my vote has nothing to do with this. The point is that you can't say that I was expecting a bandwagon with a reasonless vote. How often does that ever happen? The logic is just stupid.

1. Maybe I am, but I don't think so. This point comes down to personal opinion and I don't see any point in pursuing it. If you can help find scum based on those reactions I'll happily eat my words.

2. This attempt at a defense fails. The post you're using as your defense now is Nacho's post 85. However, you first suspect Nacho in your post 81 for not reading you post - you use his post 79 as proof of this. The problem is that 79 is the direct opposite of proof that he didn't read you case - 79 says that he did read it. The fact that 85 potentially (and its only potentially, not definitely) adds some weight to your accusation doesn't look great for Nacho, but it also doesn't change the fact that when you made that accusation you were essentially pulling it out your ass.

3. It may not be the most likely thing in the world, but it is a possibility and since you gave no reason of your own its a possibility that other people are well within their rights to explore. Personally, I'm thinking that the people who came after you are more likely to have been pushing it as a counter wagon. This time around Richard gets a pass based on the fact that self defense is perfectly reasonable from town on page 2, that leaves jmurph and Spyrex. Given this point and the contradiction pointed out at the top of this post I think I like my jmurph vote very much.

[q21]

Ok, so having read over everything, including some walls of text that, for being 7 pages into D1, make my eyes bleed, I am inclined to say that at least one of Shotty vs. masfloovinev is scum. There is naturally potential that they're both scum, though I'm less inclined to believe it. On a pureply gut level, I think that mas is at this point more likely to be scum. His reactions seem a bit over the top to be purely town. Part of this comes simply from the fact that I know Shotty's playstyle better, but every time someone shuts down one of mas's arguments, he seems to get more and more agitated. The only motivation that I can see for this is cornered scum.

FoS: Masfloovinev

.

I'd like to point out a direct contradiction at this point. Here you state that you feel that Mas is scummier than Shotty - despite the fact that you claim the reason is purely gut, you do actually give a half-decent reason for viewing Mas as scummier. My problem arises from the fact that you only FoS Mas and you leave your vote sitting right where it was: Shotty.

Here's the thing: Mas's playstyle is very reactionary at this point. If I switch my vote to him, OMG, he reacts in an angry fashion. There'd be no difference in his reaction than what he's done before and probably nothing that we would learn from it. So instead, I left my vote where it is because I think it's much more interesting to note the connection between you and Shotty, and something that I would prefer to explore more before I move my vote elsewhere, especially since my read on mas is a gut-read, and I don't typically hold much with my gut.

The fact remains that stating that person A is scummier than person B but not changing your vote from A to B is a direct contradiction.

q21 tries to distance himself, but within the same post, fails to do so:

Please explain, I don't recall trying to distance from anything.
As for how closely Shotty and I are playing at this point - the possibility of Shotty buddying up has occurred to me, but I'm incline to believe that we're a pair of townies who have been linked by mas's reasonless vote on one and then an immediate jump to a reasonless vote on the other.

If you read the quote that I have immediately following, you would see that you speak against Shotty (in a flimsy sense) and then go on in the same post to parrot him again. That was what I meant by distancing.

Actually, that quote is me speaking against Mas and later me again speaking against Mas - the second time around making a point which, if anything, Shotty parroted, not me.

This time around Richard gets a pass based on the fact that self defense is perfectly reasonable from town on page 2, that leaves jmurph and Spyrex. Given this point and the contradiction pointed out at the top of this post I think I like my jmurph vote very much.

The problem that I have with this argument that you and some others are making is that you're assuming that the counterwagon must be a scumteam trying to protect one of their own. This to me does not have to be the case. I'm not denying the possibility, since I can only speak from my own perspective, but when I come into the game, about to make my first vote in RVS, and I see an L-2 wagon on page 2, I get a little nervous about that. At least two players (Spyrex and Nachomamma - might've been one more that I missed) hadn't posted yet either, and putting someone at L-1 on page 2 when opportunistic scum could easily end the day just seems silly to me. Instead, going after the prime player on the first wagon is a great way to gauge reactions. My point is that you're only looking at the counter-wagon as if it has scum motivations, and this seems a little short-sighted to me.

I'm not assuming that it

must

be a scumteam trying to protect one of their own, I allowing for the possibility that it

could

be a scumteam trying to protect one of there own and deciding that this early on Day 1 that possibility is as good a lead to look into as any other.

[q21]

q21, what do you think of FakeGod and SpyreX?

At the moment: Nothing worth mentioning, or I'd have mentioned it.

[q21]

I getting suspicious of CES, three votes and half a reason (and I'm being generous to give him that much) between them. Its scummy.

No it couldn't, and you damn well know it. No-one has ever legitimately caught all three scum within the first day.

This is a scummy way to try and push the suspicion off of yourself. Scummier yet is the complete failure to answer FakeGod's subsequent question.

[q21]

I getting suspicious of CES, three votes and half a reason (and I'm being generous to give him that much) between them. Its scummy.

I believe that's above average for me on page 6 in the reasons department - and about par in the votes department.

Does the ratio of reasons to votes go up as the game goes on?

q21, I want to know your current reads on those players.

I thought my last post on this subject made it quite clear that my read on those players is null.

[q21]

mas - I like Casus Belli's play at the moment.

[q21]

*sigh*

This is one of three games in a row where I got nightkilled night 1. So, in this game as in those games I have to ask: Why me?