Witness Protection wrote:Wemight be the Town bloc.
Nice scumclaim.
In post 27, Zebulin wrote:
Why is Post 17 a scumtell? I see the logical fallacy (better to assume you have one of the scumblocs) but town could made the same mistake just as easily as scum.
In post 39, goodmorning wrote:
Why did you meta dive them instead of commenting on someone who's actually from your group?
In post 53, goodmorning wrote:
1how would you know their RVS scumplay would be different before you meta'd them? I am confused.
2No you haven't. Jumping on the "you said we might be the all-Town bloc so CLEARLY SCUM" bandwagon barely counts and neither of your other prior posts mentions your groupmates.
3Have you played with both other members of your group before?
In post 54, serrapaladin wrote:Tell me something about my meta, scrip?
In post 59, goodmorning wrote:
Then back to my original question: why PN first? Why not WP? Or even serra, if all you know about him is reputation?
In post 59, goodmorning wrote:
As for 2, stop moving the goalpoasts; 2 out of your 3 posts didn't make any mention of your groupmates. You hadn't been talking about them in 67% of your posts. Yes, I recognise that 3 posts isn't a massive sample size BUT STILL.
In post 59, goodmorning wrote:
(and ftr i am defining the "you said we might be the all-Town bloc so CLEARLY SCUM" thing as a bandwagon because it clearly has no basis in fact, is simply popular opinion for whatever reason) (also it looks like the kind of thing Scum would say for an easy scumread BUT I'M NOT SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT THAT, NOPE)
In post 63, goodmorning wrote:
Yes, but why would you think that it necessarily would? Especially given that Witness mentioned a game with this exact setup that he was in before?
In post 63, goodmorning wrote:
I have observed a trend of you ignoring your group, which makes me think you want to fly under their radars.
In post 65, goodmorning wrote:
And you didn't mention that you meta'd everyone when I asked you "why PNinstead ofsomeone from your group" because? Wouldn't the obvious answer to that be "I meta'd everyone I haven't played, but only PN's provided meaningful insights"?
In post 42, Scripten wrote:
I tend to meta dive everyone I haven't played with before so I can get an idea of what their RVS play might mean. Perp stood out because their RVS scumplay looked significantly different from this game.
In post 65, goodmorning wrote:
If I watch a door for half an hour, and three people come out - all blonde women - then I would expect the next person out to, similarly, be a blonde woman. People are wired to notice patterns.
In post 65, goodmorning wrote:
As for "potential Scum motivations" - Witness pointed out himself that it has previously come from Town (as would I have had I thought it would be necessary); therefore Town, having said it, must have had a reason to say it and so it follows that it is not, in point of fact, a particularly alignment-indicative thing for Witness to have said.
In post 69, Witness Protection wrote:
This is his whole case. He hasn't varied from this theme since he jumped on it. He hasn't even explained why it's scummy. What would scum's plan have been? You tell me since it's your scum read.
He didn't just mention it, he started pushing that he was part of it. It's pretty much a moot point that we have a town bloc, so why is it important to hedge toward being part of it unless serrapaladin or myself got lynched and flipped town?
In post 69, Witness Protection wrote:
PN seems to be playing according to what I remember of them. So it's pretty much verified that they are actually PN. I don't read them as anything but null ATM. Whatexactlygives you the Town read? Explain what you saw in their "meta".
In post 69, Witness Protection wrote:
Then you should have this game sown up, if meta is all you need. I'm getting to the point I dismiss most "meta" reads out of hand, because "he's not playing the way he did in such and such a game" is such an easy place for scum to sit and just go "meta".
In post 69, Witness Protection wrote:
If you're going to use meta in your case, please do more that just say " he isn't playing the same as he did then." Show what is similar and what's not. Explain how that supports your read. Otherwise it's just an empty read.
In post 69, Witness Protection wrote:
I missed BB calling me scum. What's the scum motivation to mentioning the all Town group? Was I(scum) trying to trick my group somehow? We still have to lynch one of us. That was what Sthar8 & Jingle (I don't remember the name of their hydra ) got accused of in my last Triplicate game. But it doesn't even make sense, pushing mentioning the all Town group as a scum tell. I'm all for tin foil theories, but you just say it's scummy, but never try to explain why you think it's scum.
In post 69, Witness Protection wrote:
Why meta diveanyoneto get an idea of their RVS play? I'm starting to believe you. I bet you did meta dive players in this game. For nefarious reasons.
In post 69, Witness Protection wrote:
All our words are here for posterity, prove it, don't just say it. Take my post and show how it means what you're saying it means.
In post 69, Witness Protection wrote:
Sticks hard with an unexplained scum read. Town reads PN for "meta". He never explains what he got from the "meta", just says that's why he has reads. He looks like scum that's latched onto something they (scum) see as an easy push. I still need to ISO the other third of Wisdom, but from what I remember, he hasn't said much of anything. He did ask if Scripten was around once, then never followed up when he (Scripten )said he was.
In post 83, goodmorning wrote:I'm not really putting any weight on your vote but on the reasoning for it - and "potential Scum motivation" is a thing you keep saying but it doesn't make the action anything other than Null.
I never said you should change your vote.
Witness Protection wrote:
As for this intent, what is it?Whatis it scum would get from tricking (?) his group into thinking it was the all Town group? Tricking both you and Serrapalidan into sacrificing yourselves because I was so generous as to call us all Town (before either of you had spoken) group?
In post 87, goodmorning wrote:
This is way worse than anything I posted, because this reasoning assumes that everyone in this game is a complete and utter idiot.
In post 88, Witness Protection wrote:
You keep misrepping the whole thing. You're the one blowing it up, then yelling that I' m doing it.
In post 88, Witness Protection wrote:
So you say that saying that was some long term plan thing. You think something said in RVS is actually going to have that large an effect, and that scum would rely on one statement for their entire play? You call me scum because I said "all Town", but you call me scummy because I defend myself from something I see as off the wall. That makes it a lot harder to Town read you. I just don't see how anyone taking something so null, and so steadfastly calling it scummy.
In post 88, Witness Protection wrote:
You admit it's on page 1, but then turn around and defend it by using Serrapalidan's play assomething. If you weren't latched onto a phrase, maybe we could get more from him. His play's been so null. It isn't until recently (post wise) he's said anything of note.
In post 89, serrapaladin wrote:
I'm not, nor did I suggest I would defer to her opinion. I have an opinion on it and want to check if that lines up with hers. Asking this way around is much more likely to give useful results than me arguing my opinion and then asking if people agree.
In post 89, serrapaladin wrote:
Zeb could be town, actually. I think PN is more likely to be the scum in that group.
In post 94, serrapaladin wrote:
Then why not wait for it to play out and then call me out for sheeping gm's opinion?
In post 94, serrapaladin wrote:
It seems he actually thought about whether you v WP is TvT or TvM, in the context of his model.
In post 133, serrapaladin wrote:I would propose we open the question of whom to lynch in each group to all of us, deciding by majority in each case if possible, runoff if not.
As is, we have the following issues with our voting system:
- members of the all-town group can't actually vote for scum today
- while randomly lynching in a 3p LyLo has a 1/3 town EV, in reality only takes 1 of the 2 town to vote wrongly for scum to win, giving a real EV somewhere closer to 1/4
- scum interactions will be much harder to gauge, since some people will not necessarily focus on all groups. leading on from that, mislynches in a group could easily be used D2 by out-of-group scum to push a mislynch of someone in the group.
I don't think us talking about all groups really compensates for the concrete opinions that should underpin voting.
In post 174, Hopkirk wrote:
Several posts on meta that i'm not quoting due to length.
I don't particularly understand why he didn't mention WP's meta or, if meta of RVS doesn't tell him anything, why he bothers with RVS meta.
In post 174, Hopkirk wrote:
Well this is firstly a bit on an ATE (the whole "lynch me i don't care) but the thing i'm more concerned with is why he only says this about WP. As i brought up in my last post, lucky basically does the same thing. Yet scripten has ignored lucky completely.
In post 178, Hopkirk wrote:
1.) So is it usually helpful and this game is just an outlier?
2.) They both said about themselves being in a townblock.
3.) How are you reading the third member of your block?
In post 186, goodmorning wrote:I was liking Hopkirk til 172, now I think maybe not so Town?
As for me not really being around: I'm taking six 3000-level classes. My professors are mostly ridiculous.
In post 187, serrapaladin wrote:Here's my lynch preferences in each group at the moment:
Hopkirk > lucky > gm
BC > scrip > serra
PN > zeb = BB
In post 234, beastcharizard wrote:Look Serra is scum. I called her out and then she gets a scum read on me. They aren't actually saying anything until after I called them out as well. They were trying to skate by content on me and scripten thinking the other is scum and then when I showed that wasn't mh train of thought she had to do something.