4 (Dunnstral) - basically my thoughts on the "this isn't an rvs vote" line are that they're either 1)a deliberate pattern that serves some purpose unknown to the rest of us or 2)a totally meaningless thing that has no intent behind it. the former seems like slight scum behavior whereas the latter would be very slight town behavior.
12 (Robert) - I'm getting town vibes from this--not voting during RVS isn't inherently bad, and there's at least enough content to this post to generate discussion. doing things that generate discussion early on is good and pro-town, and that's what this post does.
29 (ira) - this is a good post and I feel good about iraonavp.
34 (xyzzy) - I can't believe I misspelled "Dunnstral". anyway, this was basically an attempt to ask Dunnstral whether his posts had any specific meaning without going too far into detail about what things I think that meaning might be.
38 (Bins) - I don't agree with the sentiment that someone's comfort level can function as a tell with any real level of precision; there are probably just as many people who do exactly the opposite as scum.
40 (xyzzy) - this was me trying to ask the same question as #34 but in a more specific manner, seeking a specific answer.
41 (Dunnstral) - not directly answering a question like this feels like it could be a sign that you're trying to avoid any really specific discussion, which would be bad. on the other hand, the fact that your reply was just 3 minutes after my post is a good sign; that seems to point away from the idea that you might be acting super deliberately at this point. I think after giving it more thought I feel like this is probably a town read (although that's also influenced by stuff from later in the thread, I guess, but whatever)
46 (Tyler) - I don't like having a vote with the implication that there's meaning behind it without going into that reasoning at all; that said, Tyler's post #50 is substantial enough that I'm fine with the lowish level of detail here.
55 (Keyser) - this post says some worthwhile things, but I'm not sure how to feel about Keyser overall yet. also, nice gifs.
59 (xyzzy) - this post is really incoherent, but that's my cat's fault for waking me up at 4:30 am.
62 (Tyler) - this is a good post and I trust Tyler so far.
66 (Jaack) - I don't particularly agree with you regarding your original vote, but I like the reasoning you give for it here.
70 (Zachstralkita) - this is the first post from Zachstralkita that I think actually says anything significant; the rest of his posts before this one have a really low signal:noise ratio.
77 (Zachstralkita) - why the unvote?
81 (Keyser) - I think I answered your question here substantially enough earlier in this post, so I'm just acknowledging your line of questioning here.
87 (Zachstralkita) - you're one to talk; I'd say Dunnstral is one of the better players in this regard.
97 (ira) - why on earth would it
not
matter?
103 (ira) - what about voting the largest wagon do you find helpful? I don't necessarily disagree entirely, but it seems like something vastly more variable than that.
106 (Dunnstral) - I don't personally think there's any strong correlation in either direction between alignment and willingness to commit to an opinion early. (although now I'm contemplating whether it would be a valuable use of dozens of hours to look at a very large number of games to test this theory...)
119 (toolenduso) - I definitely agree that this day is moving in an abnormal fashion; I'm curious how you believe this would likely affect most town players, since you offered an opinion on how that might change scum behavior.
120 (toolenduso) - calling it an easy vote is probably fair. a big part of my voting for him was an effort to get him to actually talk--I agree, for instance, that his vote requires explanation that isn't there yet.
122 (Zachstralkita) - this still isn't an explanation, and it's still not helpful to anyone; saying that we don't see it is pointless unless you're willing to explain precisely what it is you see, and repeating that you're confident isn't an explanation.
124 (Zachstralkita) - like, what does this even mean? what are you talking about with Dunnstral's "aura"? this post isn't helpful to anyone.
138 (Bins) - you backed off a lot in this post relative to how you were originally in #38; have your opinions about Dunnstral changed significantly?
141 (Bins) - I'm pretty sure I'm the one who felt good about Tyler that you're asking about; basically, he's doing a good job analyzing a lot of players and saying useful things and feels very genuine. I felt like the "guess why I'm voting this way" in #46 wasn't that great (it's kind of a leading question that just gets other people to answer for your actions), but that's the only thing I've specifically disliked.
159 (Zachstralkita) - why do you believe that you being lynched is more likely?
161 (toolenduso) - I'm having a hard time reading Jaack; he asks a lot of useful questions, but I'm having a hard time deciding how I feel about him. I think his belief that one of me, toolenduso or Bins is scum is noteworthy.
169 (Jake) - what lead to this vote? obviously I'm fine with votes on Zachstralkita, but this is still a post that's empty other than having a vote in it, which isn't great given how little you've said so far.
196 (ira) - whether that post was RVS or something serious is pretty much crucial to the entire conversation surrounding it; if it was, then interpreting it is an entirely different matter. you seem to think that it's irrelevant. I'm bothered by that.
197 (ira) - that's true, but you're suggesting that always voting the largest wagon during RVS is a good thing to do simply as policy. I'm questioning whether that can actually consistently provide useful data if people do it just because it's a good idea. I don't think it benefits anyone, and is probably even less beneficial if you explicitly announce it.
201 (Jake) - this is almost completely devoid of content as an explanation, and I don't like it at all.
204 (Keyser) - concerning what I wrote about
post 12, I think this is a valid point; the fact that discussion was generated doesn't necessarily imply that Robert2424 wanted to generate it, and it's the sort of post where such a concern is valid.
210 (Bins) - having a ton of town reads and not any really solid scum reads is a really good way to blend in and look helpful without really contributing much. granted, you kind of back off from this idea almost immediately, but it initially bothered me.
222 (Keyser) - I agree with this.
226 (Floof) - I'm really curious why you have a town read on Zachstralkita. please elaborate.
229 (Jake) - it's absolutely absurd that you of all people are questioning someone's vote on Zachstralkita.
233 (Jake) - this is a bad post and you should feel bad. simply stating you have a read on someone and not offering any reasoning why is super scummy and unhelpful.
235 (Jake) - "When I voted Zach nobody else was" this is just objectively false??? I voted for Zachstralkita well before you. as Dunnstral points out in
238, even if you had been the first to vote him, you certainly wouldn't have been the first to be suspicious of him.
241 (Jake) - this is
exactly
what Dunnstral was doing; stop trying to act like it isn't.
242 (Zachstralkita) - I don't agree with nearly any of the points this post makes, but I'm pleasantly surprised to see Zachstralkita actually contribute to the game this much.
243 (Jake) - you're not under an
obligation
to do anything, but not explaining a vote isn't going to look good at this point regardless of the circumstances.
245 (Jake) - Jake from State Farm is scum. I'm keeping my vote on Zachstralkita, because I think it does more good there, but if Jake ends up being lynched today, I'll be happy with that result. I'm not going to bother linking directly to 246 and 247 since they're directly after this one, but they're all terrible. your entire point seems to basically be "Dunnstral is asking me to explain my actions, and therefore Dunnstral is scum."
255 (Jake) - "because I like being difficult" is obscenely unhelpful and anti-town; if you want to benefit the town, you should be contributing more information, not deliberately obfuscating it. and stop pretending like posts 169 and 201 contributed anything meaningful. they did not. and the entire notion that people should simply remain silent until someone asks them to contribute is total nonsense. this is a fascinatingly terrible post and your obsession with proving that Dunnstral is a terrible, terrible liar is only making yourself look worse.
258 (ira) - I agree with this; if you agree with the reasoning for a wagon, not joining it solely because of the other people (besides the person whose argument you agree with) on it doesn't really make sense.
265 (h_a) - I'd like to know why you made this post. I have my own thoughts regarding it (and regarding Zachstralkita's response to it, which I wasn't a huge fan of), but I'm curious about your goals with it.
271 (h_a) - I know this isn't meant to be a super strong point, but I doubt that this is relevant given that Floof had just replaced in; it's entirely possible that they're scum together and Bins hadn't yet looked at their day talk thread.
274 (Zachstralkita) I don't like how seriously you reacted to this question. I know being useless and uninformative is kind of your schtick in this game, but to stop doing so for a post like this doesn't indicate good things.
276 (Jake) - you 4 hours earlier: "Town should only concern themselves with stating who they think are scum" -- why would you even bother telling us when you like a post someone's made if that's your philosophy?
277 (Jake) - this would be all well and good were it not for the fact that you've still not explained in precise detail why you voted for Zachstralkita.
282 (toolenduso) - as I noted in 188, I didn't actually know that the "post" tag existed; while I prefer not to quote posts for more than a few posts (because it's really easy to screw up those tags), I would've formatted #89 in a more readable format if I had been familiar with a way to. also, which question in
post 158 are you referring to?
295-297 (Keyser) - I like this analysis of iraonavp, and this makes me feel better about Keyser and worse about ira; I don't agree with the assertion that Keyser hasn't made substantial contributions of information in his posts. I find the fact that he then votes for h_a weird, because between the two of them, ira is definitely the one producing more of the ideas that Keyser disagrees with. (I definitely don't feel as strongly about ira as Keyser does, btw--my feelings regarding ira are just very slightly worse than neutral)
301 (Tyler) - this explanation for your original vote for me is interesting, because I personally pretty much immediately had a strong sense of why you cast that vote, even before reading what anyone else or you had to say about it; was there any other specific reasoning you thought someone might give for your vote?
307 (Zachstralkita) - "you're not explaining much. It's probably why people think you're scum. I get why a few think I'm mafia, but I'm going to collectively just say........ you're not right." - I can't imagine you don't see that the exact same is true of you, which implies that you're trying to deliberately look scummy; do you think that this benefits the town somehow?
317 (Jake from State Farm) - why do you believe Dunnstral was avoiding you?
320 (Jake) - do you think there's not a big difference between just being wrong on day one and saying "if I'm wrong, lynch me" on day one?
327 (ira) - I like the logic you use here regarding why Bins might have feigned suspicion of Dunnstral as scum here; saying something really conditional and weak about someone's behavior and saying that it's scummy is definitely an effective way to express an opinion you know to be false without really having to commit to anything.
330 (h_a) - "Town are statistically significantly more likely to just give a simple "no" answer. Scum usually give a more complicated answer or deflect with something. Zach kind of gave a combination of the two." - I agree with this.
332 (Dunnstral) - this is a really good point, because especially as the game progresses, staying under the radar and avoiding giving anyone any kind of read is a lot worse than giving a neutral read with a lot of info.
333 (iraonavp) - this is a fair assessment of Keyser's vote on h_a. I'm not sure I agree with it, but if Keyser turned out to be scum, this logic would be reasonable evidence that ira is town.
335-336 (Jake) - you continue to make bad posts with faulty logic and defend your choice to contribute as little as possible to this game.
343 (Keyser) - I've asked a fair number of questions directed at several players; I'm planning on reformatting my wall posts behind a spoiler in this format (with links and player names), so I'll be sure to directly highlight any questions I've asked when I do that.
357 (Jaack) - I feel like overall, h_a has made relatively few major contributions, but I feel good about the ones he's made; he makes it pretty clear that he leans toward you being town, and while I think basing a scum lean solely on the fact that someone is voting for someone you think is town is pretty flimsy, I don't think it's necessarily super telling. I think his small number of contributions is bad, so overall, I feel a little negative about h_a, but not super negative. and basically my vote on Zachstralkita is because he's specifically avoided making contributions to the game time and time again without any justifiable reason, and the few contributions he does make all end up using deeply flawed logic. I think he specifically tries to prevent information from flowing through his posts, stalling the game with nonsense. at least Jake (my #2 scum read) has the courtesy to come up with (bad) reasons for his lack of contribution.
359 (Jake) - the idea that scum benefit from additional information more than town does is just blatantly incorrect.
361 (Jake) - you're suggesting that there is a single unilateral method by which scum choose nightkills; there is not.
380 (ira) - I'm never a big fan of players having too many town reads; obviously, you should have some, but getting a town read on more than half the players is really hard to do unless you're scum (i.e., you know for a fact that those players are town).
383 (Zachstralkita) - what do you think about me and my vote on you?
385 (Jake) - which votes on h_a do you find opportunistic?