Open 557: Deck of Stacks [Game Over]

[Cheery Dog]

Votecount 1.07

Katengecchi

(4) Paschendale, Finglove, penguin_alien, Voidwalker1234

tn5421

(3) Desperado, mlearn2, beastcharizard

beastcharizard

(2) SeeEmpty, talah

penguin_alien

(1) Katengecchi

Desperado

(1) Justin Playfair

Not Voting

(1) tn5421


With 12 Alive, 7 vote are required to lynch
Deadline: Wednesday, May 14, 2014, at 9:40 PM EDT (UTC-4), which is in (expired on 2014-05-14 21:39:58)

[tn5421]

I'm taking a step back and trying not to get too involved again. By no means am I going to lurk, but I started taking everything personally.

[Desperado]

What exactly is your read on Empty? It feels like you're suspicious of him based on your questioning re: him not pursuing the talah/tn/us argument, but based on this you don't seem to have him as scum. What do you think of his massive fencesit about it?

My read on Empty is exactly what I've said it is--he's town and I'm disappointed that he's not placing more emphasis on the trialogue between you/tn/talah

Why are you asking my opinion on something when I've already given it?

[Desperado]

1. It just feels strange to me that there are already 2 people with the exact same thought as talah.

It really isn't that strange. There are only so many ways to interpret what's happened thus far.

[tn5421]

@Mod: I unvoted talah in post 169 and haven't voted for anyone since then.

[Paschendale]

5. Can someone explain for me, clearly and concisely, the case on Charizard?

My reason is simple.

Not contributing

and

lurking

. This is as clear and concise as I can get.

That's not really a great reason to lynch someone so early in the game. Once the game has hit its stride and there's more going on, sure. But everyone is still figuring themselves out.

[tn5421]

UNVOTE:

Since apparently unvote: name doesn't work.

[SeeEmpty]

"Although I think there might be at least one scum in there"
Read:
"I'll just lynch whichever one of the two ppl want to lynch without taking any stance at all as to which one."

If I'm doing that you can call out on me any time. Am I doing that?

Good attempt at scum painting though.

1. And so you selectively push the low hanging fruit of the two, because he's the easier one to push? Anyway, you completely dodged my question: WHY is it "strange"? There really is no scum motivation for something like that, but you push it as scummy anyway. It's what scum do when they need to fabricate reads.

2. Why would I be worried? Go on, take your best shot. This question seems entirely pointless.

3. You basically just discounted his entire defense, proving my point - while he CAN defend against it, any defense he could give allows you to make him look bad further.

1. You say I found it scummy. I said I just feel strange about it. Maybe you should reread why I voted him. Hint: *not contributing and lurking*. Oh where is "and you agree with talah"?
2. No idea. You tell me. You do seem concerned though.
3. That's what you think. Why not you see what he says before you start defending him?

Or just put it this way: If I call you as not contributing and lurking, can you defend against it? Will any defence makes you look bad further?

You completely ignored my actual point - there is no way I can work with someone who disagrees with me on a fundamental level on a lot of things and thinks we're scum in the first place, and CONTINUES to do with no end in sight.

He explains why he thinks you're scum. You disagree with reasons that he does not accept. Then you say he "seems to have no interest in working with us". I wonder who will want work with someone that he thinks is scum. Another scum maybe?

If you think a person is scum, and your thought does not change after his reply, do you not "CONTINUES to do(push) with no end in sight"?

Also, if "you just caught my scum partner", what scum motivation is there in making the most obvious as fuck defense ever?

WIFOM at its best. "Obviously a scum won't do that so I'm obviously no scum".

You seem to be very concerned about how your play is or is not "scum motivated", and use "you can't find anything we do as scum motivated" and "scum will never do what we do" as your defence. I for one am not convinced by those reasons.

Townreads on beastcharizard.

Do explain.

That's not really a great reason to lynch someone so early in the game. Once the game has hit its stride and there's more going on, sure. But everyone is still figuring themselves out.

This is the first day of the game, and it is not at the beginning of the first day. We don't have much to analyse other than posts. He is not posting content here, but he is on another game. He is actively not doing anything here.

I agree that lynching a scummy person is better than lynching a lurker, but to me he is an active lurker, which is scummy.

It really isn't that strange. There are only so many ways to interpret what's happened thus far.

Every person interpret things differently. When you say:"I agree with everything he says", there is no telling what "everything" means. Did you missed something? Or did you misinterpret what that person is trying to say? We never know. We as listener have our own interpretation too, and we assume you understand as how we understand it. Did we get what you think? Maybe. Maybe not.

So when one person says "...and I are synching" I feel a lazy person trying to just sheep a wagon without a the need of a reason from himself, and when another person say "They are also a scum read of mine", it begins to feel strange. What is the thing that I miss that manage to get 2 people in complete agreement and nothing else to add?

If you think explaining it in your own words are too much of a hassle, you can always just quote the points that you agree on so that we are on the same page.

[beastcharizard]

I'm somewhat surprised there is serious discussion on page one. My newbie game wasn't anything like this.

Oh look at me I am new. This is what this post essentially says. It is a sorry excuse for if they play scummy. "Oh, I am new like I said early. Please forgive me."

I don't have any intention of sitting on the sidelines. I didn't mean to imply that.
Let's hunt some scum together, Saki.

Buddying up to Saki.

talah: Mildly suspicious (see: townbloc)
Desperado: Uses WWE images. How dare thee! Has played setup before. Mild suspicion, unlikely to flip scum.
penguin_alien: Seems comfortable talking about hypotheticals (see: setup modifications). Mild suspicion, fo now.
Katengecchi: I've got a slight townread on you for now. According to talah you are a hydra of Saki and Koromo.
Cheery Dog: Greentexting outside of 4chan. Suspicious :3 (don't take this particular one seriously)

More buddying. They scum read Talah for the same reason Kat does.
@SeeEmpty: How is this better than people agreeing with Talah


Breaking this up into smallish chunks.

[beastcharizard]

Sorry, not seeing how Talah evaded questions :S

Sorry, not seeing how I'm supposed to care. If you won't share info with me then I won't share info with you.

Where is the town Mindset here? Unless town play differently than they did like 5 days ago there is no town mindset here. "I am not willing to be helpful if you aren't." That is a fools game to play.

@mlearn: Talah feels eh, to me. I will need to look at her posts to get a read.

I just don't have enough on Talah to justify keeping my vote on him/her.
UNVOTE: Talah

Look at them just hop off the wagon when Void they aren't sure about Talah scum. They even went as far as to say their vote was just RVS, like they didn't just spend half the dang thread "saying" how Talah is scum.

It's just a gut feeling that discussing the setup before the game is over is going to backfire on us.

Updating my list of reads:

Pim: slight scumread, refuses to share information with town.
Talah: Still suspicious, but not enough to justify leaving my RVS vote on him/her.
penguin_alien: Still mildly suspicious, based on activity.
SeeEmpty: slight townread, while activity is lower than I'd like he brings up good points.
mlearn2, Findlove, beastcharizard: nullread, would like to see more content from you

Still saying their vote on Talah was RVS. Do you see this malarkey?


So yes I do agree on a tn scum read. Different routes can lead to the same place. People scum read others for different reasons but all that matters is that you catch the scum. It doesn't matter if you catch them because the typed the wrong way you still caught them.


For the record in the other game scum chose no power roles for themselves.

[penguin_alien]

Voidwalker1234, why do you think wagoning without reasoning is useful? Looking through your ISO, I don't see much of anything in the way of reads on people. No paper trail. What are you thinking?

[SeeEmpty]

@SeeEmpty: How is this better than people agreeing with Talah

Much better. At least now we know why you're scum reading tn.

Different routes can lead to the same place. People scum read others for different reasons but all that matters is that you catch the scum. It doesn't matter if you catch them because the typed the wrong way you still caught them.

But is your reasoning the same as Talah? From how I see it, no. That's why saying "I agree with his read" is not helpful. Explaining them is.

They scum read Talah for the same reason Kat does.

Do you think scum reading someone with the same reason as another person is a bad thing?

You still have to explain what you mean by "You jumped on the talah wagon for no reason." in your post #171.

[Katengecchi]

If I'm doing that you can call out on me any time. Am I doing that?

Good attempt at scum painting though.

Yes, you shitlord, you did it in THE EXACT POST I CALLED YOU OUT FOR.

And what makes you think I'm "scum painting", as opposed to looking into your mindset and motivations behind your posts? There is literally no town motivation to go "herp derp one of them might be scum or both might be town or they might all be scum" - it literally accomplishes nothing whatsoever. On the other hand, if you're scum, how convenient: you can just follow what everyone else seems to do and look like you're doing shit when you're really not.

1. You say I found it scummy. I said I just feel strange about it. Maybe you should reread why I voted him. Hint: *not contributing and lurking*. Oh where is "and you agree with talah"?
2. No idea. You tell me. You do seem concerned though.
3. That's what you think. Why not you see what he says before you start defending him?

Or just put it this way: If I call you as not contributing and lurking, can you defend against it? Will any defence makes you look bad further?

1. This is scummy as fuck.

It's entirely possible that scum wasn't involved in the early argument at all.

Agreed. But it is also entirely possible that all of them are scum. We can never be sure.

What say you?

I read through all of tn's post and I understand the scum read of yours. They are also a scum read of mine.

You also have the exact same read as talah? How curious. How curious indeed!

You jumped on the talah wagon for no reason.

Now I really doubt your understanding to the talah/tn/katen argument. Show me where you get this from.

...and they didn't even switch when you voted them or said you had a scum read on them.

I don't understand this part at all. What switch?

5. Can someone explain for me, clearly and concisely, the case on Charizard?

My reason is simple.

Not contributing

and

lurking

. This is as clear and concise as I can get.

It's QUITE OBVIOUS you were using this as a reason to call him scum - if not, then why the hell did you throw it in with a bunch of comments about why he was scummy? This is a post where you are ACCUSING beast, and this is PART of your accusation. So this is blatant backpedaling.

2. If you have no idea what scum motivation there is for us being concerned, then why the hell bring it up?

3. Nice misrep. HE DID THAT ALREADY WHEN HE CLAIMED THE OTHER GAME WAS MORE INTERESTING THAN THIS ONE. And you used it as another excuse to make him look bad.

WIFOM at its best. "Obviously a scum won't do that so I'm obviously no scum".

No, you shitlord, I'm saying that, unless you can find explicit scum motivation for why we're doing what we're doing, it's a NULL TELL at best, NOT A TOWN TELL, EXPLICITLY because of said WIFOM. But, again, you twisting my words around to suit your arguments is noted.

You seem to be very concerned about how your play is or is not "scum motivated", and use "you can't find anything we do as scum motivated" and

"scum will never do what we do"

as your defence. I for one am not convinced by those reasons.

Guess what? We never said this. Another misrep!


tl;dr: Your push on beast is scummy as fuck, using superficial, indefensible reasoning that, when you think about it, doesn't really hold up. When pressured, you

blatantly backpedaled on your read on him

, which is scummy as fuck. The rest of your posting is scummy as fuck, blatantly avoiding commenting on anything relevant whatsoever and fencesitting all over the fucking thread. And the way you're trying to brush off my suspicion of you by misrepping the fuck out of me and blatantly twisting my words around to suit your needs, is guess what? SCUMMY AS FUCK.

NOW GET FUCKED

Vote: See Empty

[Katengecchi]

Now I need lots more votes on SeeEmpty, and anyone who has a townread on him needs to get in here and tell me how the fuck he could possibly be town. Let's do this ~

[Katengecchi]

Or for anyone who's watching you can just look at this part

1. You say I found it scummy. I said I just feel strange about it. Maybe you should reread why I voted him. Hint: *not contributing and lurking*. Oh where is "and you agree with talah"?
2. No idea. You tell me. You do seem concerned though.
3. That's what you think. Why not you see what he says before you start defending him?

Or just put it this way: If I call you as not contributing and lurking, can you defend against it? Will any defence makes you look bad further?

1. This is scummy as fuck.

It's entirely possible that scum wasn't involved in the early argument at all.

Agreed. But it is also entirely possible that all of them are scum. We can never be sure.

What say you?

I read through all of tn's post and I understand the scum read of yours. They are also a scum read of mine.

You also have the exact same read as talah? How curious. How curious indeed!

You jumped on the talah wagon for no reason.

Now I really doubt your understanding to the talah/tn/katen argument. Show me where you get this from.

...and they didn't even switch when you voted them or said you had a scum read on them.

I don't understand this part at all. What switch?

5. Can someone explain for me, clearly and concisely, the case on Charizard?

My reason is simple.

Not contributing

and

lurking

. This is as clear and concise as I can get.

It's QUITE OBVIOUS you were using this as a reason to call him scum - if not, then why the hell did you throw it in with a bunch of comments about why he was scummy? This is a post where you are ACCUSING beast, and this is PART of your accusation. So this is blatant backpedaling.

Please and thanks

[Katengecchi]

@SeeEmpty: How is this better than people agreeing with Talah

Much better.

At least now we know why you're scum reading tn.

Different routes can lead to the same place. People scum read others for different reasons but all that matters is that you catch the scum. It doesn't matter if you catch them because the typed the wrong way you still caught them.

But is your reasoning the same as Talah? From how I see it, no. That's why saying "I agree with his read" is not helpful. Explaining them is.

They scum read Talah for the same reason Kat does.

Do you think scum reading someone with the same reason as another person is a bad thing?

You still have to explain what you mean by "You jumped on the talah wagon for no reason."

in your post #171.

^This is another blatantly scum post, by the way. Scum love to talk down to the people they're scumreading in order to intimidate them and otherwise manipulate them into not retaliating. JUST LOOK AT THE BOLDED. Hardly ggs

[Katengecchi]

@penguin:

You have some questions in my wall 193. Plz answer

[talah]

No that was a fucking hilarious post and I'm not even going to say why.

Katen if you don't simmer the fuck down and in quicktime I'm going to policy vote you myself without trying to read you further. I understand rage from experience but I can't get an objective read on you because I don't like the way you're saying things so I can't figure out where you're coming from. A lot of what you're saying looks like shitslinging, pure and simple.

I think TN and I have swallowed our pride and you need to do the same. Take VLA if you need it.


beast isn't town just because he defends you, and SeeEmpty isn't scum just for scumhunting on you. Town fencesit all the time - it's called thinking over the possibilities. I don't think he's avoiding giving his opinions, which would be the scum version of the fencesit.

[Katengecchi]

Sigh. If you're even interested, I can try to summarize it. Here goes

1. Easy push on low hanging fruit BC. 133,

"For not interested in scum hunting and lurking."

This is what scum do when they make pushes on easy targets - they use the things in their posting that are scummy on a surface level, but ignore the actual town motivation in their posts. When BC defended against it, he basically just kept repeating his points:

"What is that if that's not lurking?" "My reason is simple. Not contributing and lurking. This is as clear and concise as I can get."

. This is scummy because, as scum, he knows these things are objectively scummy and BC doesn't have a defense for it. So he keeps repeating it in order to make him look bad.

2. Backpedaling on said read when questioned about it. 188 He makes a post with a bunch of accusations towards BC, which include

"You also have the exact same read as talah? How curious. How curious indeed!"

. This is pretty bullshit and I don't see why it's scummy, and when pressured about it he claims it had nothing to do with his read on BC, which is a dishonest response given the context.

3. Overall, his pushes on beast and me just feel fake. When I asked him exactly ~what~ the scum motivation in beast's play was, he was never able to answer. This also ties into 2 - he knows beast's play isn't actually scum motivated and thus keeps dodging the question.

4. Deflective answers that don't address my actual points:
207

"Good attempt at scum painting though."

He doesn't explain how we're scum painting, he just tries to write off our accusation.

"3. That's what you think. Why not you see what he says before you start defending him?"

Mis-rep: we did.
There's more but those are the first two examples I can think of. Overall, there's a blatant pattern where he, as scum, thinks he can just write off suspicion by twisting our words around and misrepping us.

5. I still think most of his posts are fence sitting, but you seem to disagree on that.

There's more, smaller things but those are the main ones. Hope this explains it better

-Koromo

[talah]

Sigh. If you're even interested, I can try to summarize it. Here goes

1. Easy push on low hanging fruit BC. 133,

"For not interested in scum hunting and lurking."

This is what scum do when they make pushes on easy targets - they use the things in their posting that are scummy on a surface level, but ignore the actual town motivation in their posts. When BC defended against it, he basically just kept repeating his points:

"What is that if that's not lurking?" "My reason is simple. Not contributing and lurking. This is as clear and concise as I can get."

. This is scummy because, as scum, he knows these things are objectively scummy and BC doesn't have a defense for it. So he keeps repeating it in order to make him look bad.

Then why is he continuing to ask beast questions which aren't related to lurking?
How is beast low hanging fruit given he claims to have been waiting for the other game of the same setup to finish so he could get into this one, and he's apparently posting without issue elsewhere? That sounds like he's ready to interact and defend himself. Ergo, not low hanging fruit.

2. Backpedaling on said read when questioned about it. 188 He makes a post with a bunch of accusations towards BC, which include

"You also have the exact same read as talah? How curious. How curious indeed!"

. This is pretty bullshit and I don't see why it's scummy, and when pressured about it he claims it had nothing to do with his read on BC, which is a dishonest response given the context.

I took that to mean he was also suspicious of Desp who did practically the same thing, although I might be wrong.

3. Overall, his pushes on beast and me just feel fake. When I asked him exactly ~what~ the scum motivation in beast's play was, he was never able to answer. This also ties into 2 - he knows beast's play isn't actually scum motivated and thus keeps dodging the question.

They feel fake to you - goodo. I can't exactly address your feelings.
In a similar vein - you can't represent that he knows something and have it mean anything except you're floating a theory. I disagree with your theory.

4. Deflective answers that don't address my actual points:
207

"Good attempt at scum painting though."

He doesn't explain how we're scum painting, he just tries to write off our accusation.

"3. That's what you think. Why not you see what he says before you start defending him?"

Mis-rep: we did.
There's more but those are the first two examples I can think of. Overall, there's a blatant pattern where he, as scum, thinks he can just write off suspicion by twisting our words around and misrepping us.

Didn't you accuse me of scumpainting? (Or was that TN?) I recognised the statement as sarcastic toward something which had been said before.
Misrep doesn't even

mean

anything in this context. Do you seriously think he's trying to flood you with posts which are lies so that the rest of town will only read the most recent and say "hmmm, if Katen did indeed not see what beast said before starting to defend him like SeeEmpty suggested he do, then I think Katen is probably scum". Scum aren't usually that subtle anyway. Like, they'll misrep, but it'll be about situations which are general and subjective, not something which can be directly and easily disproven.
I think he was saying that you were jumping the gun on townreading beast and hindering scumhunting on him with the supermegatown you laid down (followed by the attack on SeeEmpty, which by the way you haven't let up on as evidenced by this post I'm responding to).

5. I still think most of his posts are fence sitting, but you seem to disagree on that.

Looks like it.

There's more, smaller things but those are the main ones. Hope this explains it better

Much better and thank you for doing this.
However I'd like you to reconsider your read on beast (not to the extent of scumreading him, just to the extent of keeping an open mind), because he did WhiteKnight you as town pretty fucking hard.

[Katengecchi]

Then why is he continuing to ask beast questions which aren't related to lurking?
How is beast low hanging fruit given he claims to have been waiting for the other game of the same setup to finish so he could get into this one, and he's apparently posting without issue elsewhere? That sounds like he's ready to interact and defend himself. Ergo, not low hanging fruit.

I consider low hanging fruit to be a player who's easier to push and/or lynch, whether based on playstyle or some other characteristic - that's the vibe I'm getting from beast atm.

The other questions he's asking are extremely shallow and just serve to make beast look bad.

I took that to mean he was also suspicious of Desp who did practically the same thing, although I might be wrong.

I don't see how you got that from what he said - also, if that was anything but an accusation on beast it's really really out of place given everything else in that post is trying to explain why beast is scum.

They feel fake to you - goodo. I can't exactly address your feelings.
In a similar vein - you can't represent that he knows something and have it mean anything except you're floating a theory. I disagree with your theory.

It's not really a feeling, it's something specific that shows what his true motivation actually is: I asked him exactly what the scum motivation was in beast's play, and he was never able to back it up. What do you think about that?

Also, that's not floating a theory, that's me explaining why his actions are coming from a scum POV. He is scum and knows BC is town, so he's picking on a bunch of superficial things, knowing BC has no defense for it. Look at the motivation to see why he's doing this. I can't see any strong town motivation for the way he's going about the beast push and blatantly not trying to determine the actual motivations in BC's posts, but there's a lot of pretty obvious scum motivation (possibly get a mislynch, look like he's doing something when he's really not, etc.)

Didn't you accuse me of scumpainting? (Or was that TN?) I recognised the statement as sarcastic toward something which had been said before.
Misrep doesn't even mean anything in this context. Do you seriously think he's trying to flood you with posts which are lies so that the rest of town will only read the most recent and say "hmmm, if Katen did indeed not see what beast said before starting to defend him like SeeEmpty suggested he do, then I think Katen is probably scum". Scum aren't usually that subtle anyway. Like, they'll misrep, but it'll be about situations which are general and subjective, not something which can be directly and easily disproven.
I think he was saying that you were jumping the gun on townreading beast and hindering scumhunting on him with the supermegatown you laid down (followed by the attack on SeeEmpty, which by the way you haven't let up on as evidenced by this post I'm responding to).

I didn't do that so if we did it must have been Saki. Assuming it's sarcastic like that is a bit of a stretch and I don't see it at all.

Scum does that all the time when they're really brazen and think they can just write off suspicion of them (as an example of that look what MC Maraca did in NY167 - for context, the 1 in that post had nothing to do with the actual read and he was claiming it did).

I can possibly see the last point, but there's a shitton more examples of this (I didn't list all of them off cause it tends to get really long winded and doesn't convince anyone if they don't see the same thing I'm seeing initially) and sometimes you have to make a judgement call as to what's actually going on - there's a consistent scum mindset behind his responses to me, ergo I deduce he's probably scum.


I do acknowledge beast is WK'ing us, but I'm not convinced it comes from a scum POV. Town defends town (and scum) a lot too. Also the thing is I know I've caught scum in SeeEmpty, but I don't think their interactions read as bussing right now - given the low hanging fruit vibe I get from BC, I read it more as scum pushing a mislynch. And yes I'm confident in Empty as scum, one of my stronger traits as a player is figuring out when scum is making skeevy pushes on lynch baits and I'm more than positive that's what he's doing here. I'll also bring it up to Saki and see what she says once she gets back from VLA.

[tn5421]

@beastcharizard: Your list is laughable at best. My initial vote on talah was RVS. When I placed it the second time, it stopped being RVS and was personal, which I have already explained. The problem with your logic is that it relies almost exclusively on WIFOM.

@Katen: If you're really suspicious of SeeEmpty, you should meta dive him to see how he plays. It is possible that this is how he plays as town. You also forgot to sign some of your posts......presumably as saki because Koromo is still signing his/hers.

@talah: WhiteKnighting means something different where I come from.

@beast: try re-reading the thread[/sarcasm]

[Desperado]

@ tn: What does WKing mean where you come from?

@ Katen: Link to your two best town games? Preferrably ones that show your catching-scum-pushing-easy-mislynches prowess.

@ talah: If all three of you are actually town, what happens to your reads?

[Finglove]

Katen, I don't particularly like your approach of scumhunting SeeEmpty. From best to worst, I consider logic behind scumhunting as follows:

BEST
(1) Scummy activity -> Scum
(2) If they are scum -> their activity looks scummy -> Scum
(3) If they are scum -> their activity still doesn't look scummy -> Scum (obviously crap, but included for completeness)
WORST

It comes across to me that you're veering quite close to (2) rather than (1), i.e., a lot of your argument seems to be predicated on SeeEmpty being scum. I assume this is because, there being no probabalistic reason for it, you have some kind of gut feeling that you can't elucidate in words, but with that feeling a lot of his posts come across as scummy, which you helpfully point out.

For the sake of example, lets go through your five points assuming that he's town:

1. He's pushing lurkers because it's something that needs to be done, and it helps establish him as an active player the town may want to keep alive
2. I don't get a backpeddling vibe from 188, he's responding carefully to the questions people ask. He points out symmetrical reads because yeah, it's interesting, and might be worth thinking about later
3., 5. are feelings.
4. That post also contains a lot of responses too, and they look pretty comprehensive.

You see my problem? I don't think that what you're pointing to is objectively scummy. Maybe it's not objectively town either (I mean, the thought experiment above is way more supportive than I actually think) but I'm not feeling a great pull to jump onto that wagon.

[Finglove]

@SeeEmpty: I like beast's push on tn and I don't see anything particularly scummy in his iso. That's good enough for now (for me).