Mini 1787: Peruvian Nightclub Mafia (Game End!)

[xyzzy]

VOTE: Jaack

for being the first person to be the second person on a wagon.

toolenduso, I just noticed your registration date is like a week before mine; that's interesting a little bit.

[xyzzy]

I played for several years then just came back a week ago! but weirdly like half of the people I remember being friends with had April 2007 registration dates?

[xyzzy]

Dunnsrtal, can you offer any explanation for your behavior in this game so far?

[xyzzy]

Dunnstral, are you trying to derive any information at this point, or are you just having fun with this? either way, are you achieving your goal?

[xyzzy]

I don't have any reason to believe or disbelieve anything you say necessarily, but I think the fact that you choose to not answer the question on that basis is interesting; I'll have to see more of your behavior before I can comment further.

who did you get a town read off of?

[xyzzy]

my reasoning for not committing to a specific opinion on Dunnstral so far is two-fold: first, it's just too early in the game for me to feel strongly about anyone, and at this point I think the best thing I can do is just ask open-ended questions and not try too hard to judge those answers until I can do so with more context; second, I'm still in the process of coming back from a six-year hiatus, and the extent to which both this site and myself as a player have changed is great enough that it would be a mistake for me not to take things slowly at first. the best way for me to avoid mistakes that would be harmful to the town is to not immediately trust that my own instincts are perfect right out of the gate.

in a more specific response to Keyser Söze: my question in 34 was because Dunnstral had a few specific choices early on that showed a deliberate pattern—for one, there was the "this isn't an rvs vote" wording, which obviously means something, even if it's not possible yet to tell you it means. the "interesting" behavior I noted in 42 could go either way, depending on what else Dunnstral does today.

I'll post more substantial thoughts on what I think of everyone so far this afternoon when I'm not paying from a phone.

btw I'm not a "he".

[xyzzy]

here are some thoughts going through the thread post by post:

4: 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: 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: this is a good post and I feel good about iraonavp.

34: 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: 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: this was me trying to ask the same question as #34 but in a more specific manner, seeking a specific answer.

41: 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: 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: this post says some worthwhile things, but I'm not sure how to feel about Keyser overall yet. also, nice gifs.

59: this post is really incoherent, but that's my cat's fault for waking me up at 4:30 am.

62: this is a good post and I trust Tyler so far.

66: I don't particularly agree with you regarding your original vote, but I like the reasoning you give for it here.

70: 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: why the unvote?

81: I think I answered your question here substantially enough earlier in this post, so I'm just acknowledging your line of questioning here.

87: you're one to talk; I'd say Dunnstral is one of the better players in this regard.

---

Tyler is the player I'm getting the strongest town vibes from. Dunnstral, if your opinion of Keyser changes at any point, I'm definitely interested in knowing that. Zachstralkita has managed to talk a lot while saying very little, and I really don't like that.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Zachstralkita

[xyzzy]

I'm gonna make a few posts in a row probably; I might leave for dinner (or the white panel van selling ice cream outside my apartment right now, because I guess an actual ice cream truck was too expensive (no, for real, there's a white panel van selling ice cream outside)), so some of those posts might be later? here's the first one:

OK - I can understand your reasoning about scum being over-cautious or self-conscience in early D1 play, but I am not seeing that fear/over-concern in Robert2424's opening post. I saw it as a RVS reply to Jake from State Farm's RVS vote.

"offering an opinion without justification or commitment"

? - I have never seen this on Page 1 of a game.

I like playing aggressively at the beginning of D1. At the very least, it gets discussion going, and sometimes you'll get lucky and catch scum.

And I still don't think that Robert's post was an RVS post. I mean you may be right, but it seems serious to me. Not that it really matters because when Robert comes back he can write it off as RVS either way.

Why does it matter whether or not his post is RVS?

why on earth would it

not

matter?

[xyzzy]

I think that voting the largest wagon is a good way to conduct RVS.

I voted Keyser because I found him suspicious? I don't see what's comical about that.

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.

^^ I'd be more inclined to believe that mafia would sit back early and only start pushing later on in general but of course it depends on the person

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...)

This game is basically contradicting my expectations of how town usually gets out of RVS. I feel like it usually goes like this:

RVS votes -> player A says something mildly scummy -> people wagon player A, and in the process player B says something weird -> people wagon player B

By this time in the game I feel like there's usually been a legit wagon. Since there hasn't been one yet in this game, I feel like scum is either disjointed or timid.

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.

Zachstralkita has managed to talk a lot while saying very little, and I really don't like that.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Zachstralkita

It strikes me that this is kind of an easy vote to make.

What do you think of the possibility that zach is just a jokey player, so his posts are naturally going to have less solid content in them?

That being said...

Blatant scum. Are you kidding me?

VOTE: Dunnstral

...the jokey playstyle does make it harder for me to know whether statements like this one are serious. Can you explain the dunn vote, zach?

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.

...the jokey playstyle does make it harder for me to know whether statements like this one are serious. Can you explain the dunn vote, zach?

None of you see it. I FUCKING SEE IT. This isn't Dunn being town, it's him trying to look like he's being town.

I'd bet one of my body parts on Dunn flipping scum if I.... had enough of those to lose

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.

This isn't Dunn being town, it's him trying to look like he's being town.

Trying to look town...could you show an example? .

It's his aura.

Also, are you and Dunn like friends or something? 'cuz it seems like you know each other pretty well.

like, what does this even mean? what are you talking about with Dunnstral's "aura"? this post isn't helpful to anyone.

[xyzzy]

sorry ur gonna get a quote post per page because the site doesnt hold onto my quotes properly

You entered the game with a level of comfort that looked sort of like "hey look at me! scum would never post like this!" It's a strategy I use... to often as scum. That's why it struck me as odd.

Fair point, kind of.
"level of comfort"? Should I be spazzing out and telling everyone I'm town

Uh, no that's kind of what I felt like you were doing.

It was either really scummy (hence the vote) or really town (as in, you're actually comfortable because you're really are town but you're just slightly awkward about it).

And to be clear, I know you aren't being serious in your first few posts. Like I get they're jokes.

you backed off a lot in this post relative to how you were originally in #38; have your opinions about Dunnstral changed significantly?

I don't know what side I'm on in the whole Keyser/Tyler vs. xyzzyz. I have a tendency to be paranoid of people who act like they know what they're doing. I disagreed with a few of Keyser's points, but his entry is solid and I find myself agreeing on the bigger points.

I liked xyzzyz's follow up in 89 a lot (the long post). I felt like he comfortably was able to explain himself and elaborate further on his earlier points.

I didn't like Tyler's entry. Who was the person who said they had a strong townread on him? I'd really like you to explain that.

It's his aura.

i c u u get me

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.

There's not much to say at this point, you lynch him, he flips scum, yay, you lynch him, he flips town, you lynch me.


More likely: You lynch me, I die, no one does anything about Dunnstral following this.

why do you believe that you being lynched is more likely?

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.

Knowing how they'd respond would likely depend on individual playstyles. Errybody's different. For some people it might mean trying harder to get the game going -- maybe by starting a wagon just to see what happens -- and for others it might mean that they get disinterested and don't participate as much.

In my case, it's led to me trying to start a wagon to see what happens.

What do you think of jaack?

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.

vote: Zach

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.

also

btw I'm not a "he".

[xyzzy]

Can you use the

Code: Select all

[post]number[/post]

tag next time because this post is pretty hard to follow and I don't want your thoughts to go to waste :C

oh geez yeah! I didn't realize that existed, because it didn't exist 6 years ago. that's so convenient!

[xyzzy]

196 - 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 - 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 - this is almost completely devoid of content as an explanation, and I don't like it at all.
204 - 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 - 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 - I agree with this.
226 - I'm really curious why you have a town read on Zachstralkita. please elaborate.
229 - it's absolutely absurd that you of all people are questioning someone's vote on Zachstralkita.
233 - 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 - "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 - this is

exactly

what Dunnstral was doing; stop trying to act like it isn't.
242 - 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 - 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 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 - "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 - 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 - 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 - 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 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 - 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 - 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 - 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?

[xyzzy]

that's a good point; I'll do that from now on in any posts of that format.

[xyzzy]

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?

as I said, I'm going to repost my wallposts with better formatting (links to the posts in question and the names of the players whose posts I'm directing things at). I'll then have a separate thing where I divide these by player for easier reference and specifically highlight questions I've posed to each of those players.

[xyzzy]

Spoiler: chronological version of all of my long posts

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?

I've put a handful of things I'd like specific responses to in boldface below:

Spoiler: version divided by player

Bins:
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.
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.
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.

Dunnstral:
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.
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)
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...)
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.

Floof:
226 (Floof) -

I'm really curious why you have a town read on Zachstralkita. please elaborate.

heuristically_alone:
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.
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.

iraonavp:
29 (ira) - this is a good post and I feel good about iraonavp.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).

Jaack:
66 (Jaack) - I don't particularly agree with you regarding your original vote, but I like the reasoning you give for it here.
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.

Jake from State Farm:
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.
201 (Jake) - this is almost completely devoid of content as an explanation, and I don't like it at all.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
385 (Jake) - which votes on h_a do you find opportunistic?

Keyser Söze:
55 (Keyser) - this post says some worthwhile things, but I'm not sure how to feel about Keyser overall yet. also, nice gifs.
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.
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.
222 (Keyser) - I agree with this.
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)
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.

Robert:
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.

toolenduso:
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.
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.
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?

Tyler the Creator:
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.
62 (Tyler) - this is a good post and I trust Tyler so far.
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?

Zachstralkita:
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?
87 (Zachstralkita) - you're one to talk; I'd say Dunnstral is one of the better players in this regard.
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.
159 (Zachstralkita) -

why do you believe that you being lynched is more likely?

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.
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.
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?

383 (Zachstralkita) -

what do you think about me and my vote on you

?

[xyzzy]

until 15 days ago, the last time I had been on this website for more than like a week was December 2008 (I thought it had been 2010, but I just checked since it's relevant; additionally I posted in a couple of threads back in 2012, but didn't play any games back then), so the fact that I have a registration date of 2007 isn't remotely relevant.

I misread 229; other than that, as far as I can tell, your entire thing is being belligerent and doing as little as possible to directly contribute to the game as possible, all while occasionally contradicting yourself and telling anyone who disagrees with you that they're stupid. I think that, in the context of how you're acting in this particular game, that you're scum.

[xyzzy]

now that the topic has moved away from Jake's vote on Zachstralkita, I feel like Jake has been a far more useful player (even in just like the last page and a half). I'm still not a fan of the choices made by him surrounding that vote, but I'm feeling better now.

in response to Jake's 409: I think the relevance of that depends entirely on whether Robert could've had any good reason to strongly believe that you're town at that point; if Robert died and turned out to be scum, that would be a strong indicator in your favor, but I don't think there's any reason to believe that it was anything more than "I believe you're a skilled player, I'm going to keep my eye on you on the assumption that you would do well as scum."

I'm going to reread h_a; I've felt just slightly worse than neutral about him, but given that he's at L-1, I'd like to reassess.

[xyzzy]

it's been 2 days since I last got the chance to post and/or closely read the thread, gonna do that now. my initial impression is that I'm really not feeling good about h_a with the most recent happenings, but I'll hopefully have a more nuanced opinion once I read some more???

pedit: Robert why are you not for day 1 lynching? not lynching someone day 1 (especially with an odd number of players) is a fundamentally bad idea in basically any normal game.

[xyzzy]

438 (Jaack) - I like this post; there's a lot of good nuance in being able to say "even if our reads are the same, the reasoning for those reads is different, and that's bad," and being able to coherently make that point without contradicting yourself is a good sign.
443 (h_a) - the first part of this post seems very reasonable; the second part, not so much.
446 (Zachstralkita) - I still very strongly feel like you're scum and you're trying to just distract the town, but at least it's entertaining
448 (toolenduso) - it should basically go without saying that lynching h_a at this point in the day would've been a terrible idea, and pointing that out feels like a convenient way to say something about the current state of the game without really

saying

anything.
456-457 (Dunnstral) - 456 is a good post (the last part of it especially) and Dunnstral is a good player. concerning 457, I think it's possible that this is a deliberate effort on Zachstralkita's part to make it seem like h_a and Zachstralkita can't be on the same team; that would be a rather elaborate setup, but I get the sense that everything Zachstralkita is probably a lot more thought out than it seems on the surface. also on an unrelated note Dunnstral has the best avatar of anyone in this game. I feel like I can trust those anime jazz hands
458 (Bins) - I'd be interested in a reads list from you, even if Jake would disagree.
461 (Keyser) - you're missing the issue that people have with your actions--it's the fact that you voted for h_a even though at that point ira seemed like a far more logical vote for you to make
465 (ira) - why did you feel that h_a's 192 was strongly town-aligned?
468 (Floof) - why do you think this? what do you think about this post in the larger context of everything Zachstralkita has said today? I personally think this is consistent with Zachstralkita's entire playstyle this game, so unless everything he's done feels townish to you, I don't see how this in particular would (and if you do get a town read on him in general, I'm especially interested in knowing about that).
474 (h_a) - there's a lot about this claim that troubles me. hard to say precisely how I feel about it.
486 (Floof) - not a fan of this at all!
492 (ira) - I think I believe this claim.
498 (Zachstralkita) - why the unvote?
519 (Dunnstral) - I don't think daytalk would be enough to compensate for both claims being real.
531 (Zachstralkita) - I don't believe this at all.
552 (h_a) - this is a bad way to try to stay alive.
556 (Jaack) - this is a really crucial point.
563 (Robert2424) - this weird not-quite-a-claim is really troubling.

I'm fine with an h_a lynch at this point. I won't vote for him for now because I feel like more discussion is still extremely useful right now, but I'm fine with it happening.

by the way, there was a brief discussion of the fact that I've put a lot of effort into asking questions and such so far, and whether that might be a sign that I'm town, and even though it's obviously beneficial for people to perceive me as town, my efforts to get more in depth are more an effort to atone for the fact that I was a terrible flaky player who did things like abandon games I was modding 9 years ago. I'm trying to be a better, more helpful player in general, and I'd be doing that even if I was scum, so I don't think it'd be fair to have people think that I'm town solely on that basis; whether the things I write actually benefit the town in any meaningful way is far more relevant than the breadth of what I write.

[xyzzy]

my gut says having one player who is somehow weaker than a regular townie and two protection roles isn't so much balanced as it is swingy, and I don't think the mafia daytalk makes it less so, but that depends heavily on the nature of the role.

the use of the phrase "weak townie" is interesting given that "weak" has a pretty specific meaning as a role modifier; it doesn't make any sense as a townie variant, but it might be related somehow?

[xyzzy]

I don't think lynching Robert makes the most sense here; either his claim is legitimate but was poorly delivered, or it's a completely incomprehensible gambit; I doubt the latter is that likely, especially given that mafia have daytalk--I doubt any rational scum would make a fake claim like that under any of the likely circumstances, especially when they have the chance to confer with their teammates to discuss things.

[xyzzy]

if you think we should lynch h_a, why did you vote for Keyser, who you don't even mention in that post?

[xyzzy]

oh, I missed the word "not".

[xyzzy]

I'm fine with a hammer happening.

[xyzzy]

oh but to clarify, I like the "wait 10 hours" plan, not the "do it immediately and don't bother with whether anyone has anything last minute to add" plan

[xyzzy]

it was moderately confusing before having a Zach and a Jaack and a Jake; now we have a Zakk, too.

anyway: I'm really glad that Tyler didn't die because I'm really curious about 688.

looking back on it, a lot of the pressure on both ira and h_a started with Keyser, so a careful reading of Keyser's ISO seems very worthwhile, and I'll definitely do that soon; given the whole issue of him voting for h_a early on even though ira was the more logical vote based on the reasoning he presented in the thread, I... well, I'm not sure how I feel about it; I'll have to think about that.

I think in general yesterday I was playing really paranoid, and pushing too hard on the "you're not helping the town, so you're scum" angle on Zachstralkita; he's another person whose ISO I'd like to reassess.

pedit: I definitely think that vote on Dunnstral is misplaced, though it's not really that surprising a vote.

[xyzzy]

I'm not feeling well and am kinda tired so this post is shorter than I'd like it to be.

to clarify, I still think Zachstralkita has been acting scummy; I just think that 1)I was mostly looking at his actions on their own, not really focusing on who might be scum with him, which isn't that useful, especially following a scum lynch, and 2)I was probably a little too insistent that not productively contributing to the town is inherently bad, and I need to reread and think about what all stood out to me throughout day 1.

I didn't ever vote Jake yesterday because I felt like my vote being on Zachstralkita was more useful/productive. later, Jake started to do things that felt more town to me. (see my post 447)

re: whether Robert's claim is scummy: Jake is using the logic that no sensible scum would ever make that fake claim to prevent their partner from being lynched, because that would just result in them also being lynched; the argument that something is so scummy that no scum would ever do it feels really flawed and I don't like it at all.

731 (Dunnstral) - I don't understand how this isn't obvious to anyone else; h_a, who was scum, tried arguing that Floof and Bins aren't scum together, and then almost immediately after suggested that they're both scummy, without any other info. I think h_a was trying to avoid saying anything too substantial about anyone, while still trying to make at least 1 scum partner look better.

Jake: continuing the whole "Dunnstral was lying" thing (757) is pointless. it seems like Dunnstral stopped acknowledging this argument because it's a bad one, and because you refused to acknowledge that anyone else's opinion on the matter had merit. just because you refuse to have a meaningful discussion on the topic where you acknowledge the arguments made by other people doesn't make your argument valid. pretty much the opposite in fact!

zakk's lack of contribution feels deliberate. it's bad.

Keyser spent a lot of time criticizing ira but didn't vote ira, and then as soon as h_a started repeating the same arguments ira had made, voted h_a; this feels really weird and inconsistent, but now that we know those players' respective roles, it's almost certainly not evidence that he's scum.

Dunnstral is town. Tyler is town. Keyser is probably town. so is toolenduso. Zachstralkita and Jake have been better today than they were yesterday. Jaack is town. Bins might be scum. the vote on zakk is a good one. Robert is probably town.

VOTE: zakk

[xyzzy]

since no one else ever bothered to try to come up with an actual answer as to why: Dunnstral, is your claim directly related to your assertion in 831 that you are 100% sure that Robert is town?

[xyzzy]

I feel like over the course of night one I lost track of a lot of what's happened in this game, and I really need to do a more comprehensive reread of day 2 so far, because I've not had time to go back and do any extensive rereading. basically, though, I got the sense during night one that I had probably been pushing too hard in directions where there was likely going to be little movement, and not really focusing as much on the topics everyone else was discussing during day one, and I've been relying too heavily on which people I feel are contributing the most to the game as a general sign of who's scum and who's not. partially that's just because I don't fully trust my own intuition yet--I'm still in that phase of feeling like I'm rusty at all of this. I think it's reasonable to be suspicious of me coming out of the gate day two basically just losing any momentum and not really having any strong opinions--I just didn't really trust my gut at that point in time, and that's what I was trying to express.

I'm feeling better about Bins now. I'm still feeling fairly confident that Jaack is town and am puzzled by the belief otherwise. I really don't like zakk's most recent post (1081) at all. I definitely think Dunnstral's townie claim (which I asked about in 993) is a fairly crucial piece of information given his response to my question about it in 994, and I'm really curious what other people think about it--the way he framed the assertion that Robert is town seems to imply that he has information that a townie wouldn't normally have access to (and isn't merely very confident of it). I'm especially curious what Robert thinks about that.

I'm going to do some rereading and hopefully write some words about that soon.

[xyzzy]

I actually kinda like toolenduso's response to me in 1084. I don't think there's harm in speculating on information that someone is choosing to conceal and whether that concealed information is good for the town, but taking a strong stance like this feels town to me, even if it's the opposite of how I feel.

anyone who thinks that Dunnstral is a good person to lynch right now is... wrong? not paying any attention? poorly perceiving the entire flow of this game? I guess I'm not surprised by the wagon on me (and I've still not had sufficient time to work on any longer posts with more substantial analysis, but I'm trying), but... I honestly can't fathom believing that the person who's done the most to really critically analyze other players and take meaningful stances on things is scummy, especially when no one has offered any real reason for it other than incredibly reachy things trying to connect him to h_a in ways that don't make any sense. anime jazz hands is the worst possible lynch

I wrote this paragraph like 5 pages ago and now people are seriously leaving my wagon to vote for Dunnstral, which is just... so comically bad. next thing you know someone's gonna vote Tyler and someone's gonna ask why and the response is just gonna be "b/c scum"

here's some thoughts from the last several pages

Jake saying that town doesn't mud sling (1166) is hilariously hypocritical and no one had done as much mud-slinging as he has

1170 (Dunnstral) - I mean I've definitely said that Jake was scum, although I've been shifting in the "he's comically wrong" direction for a while now

1173 (zakk) - oh come on are you honestly citing something that happened

after

Dunnstral's 1170 as proof that Dunnstral was wrong? I mean, I agree that 1170 is factually incorrect, but this is an embarrassingly bad argument.

I'm fine with Bins' response re:role fishing in 1186.

1192 (Jake) - I'm concerned about this post and it doesn't feel town at all.

happy birthday Bins

[xyzzy]

since Keyser requested replacement, no matter who gets lynched today, it shouldn't happen until the replacement joins and catches up and can comment on what's happened.

the self vote feels really off and I'm having a hard time accepting that as accidental, especially since Desmond had caught up completely before voting.

I've been growing less confident as this day has gone by, and I know that looks bad; I think I just need to get my head back in this, because my week has been one that has made me a little passive in how I've approached this game.

I feel like a lot of Zachstralkita's votes have been kind of opportunistic jumps on whatever wagon is happening and I'm surprised that he didn't vote for me just now.

[xyzzy]

Desmond, can you clarify what you meant by an ice cream role? I assume that means either vanilla or neapolitan, but if that's some other specific terminology, I'm afraid I don't recognize it.

[xyzzy]

Zulfy, will there be an extension of the deadline since the forums were down for the days? I assume so, but asking just to be sure.

[xyzzy]

my reaction to getting the day 3 PM and reading that Zachstralkita died was to audibly say "oh shit!"

anyway that pretty much confirms my fears yesterday that my scum reads this game have mostly been garbage, because my strongest read turned out to be completely wrong. I still feel pretty good about my town reads (Dunnstral, Tyler, Jaack, Robert, in that order), but other than that, I now feel kind of at a loss.

there's a lot I dislike regarding the circumstances surrounding Jake's hammer yesterday; it felt really abrupt when there should've been more discussion leading up to it.

[xyzzy]

there's a lot I dislike regarding the circumstances surrounding Jake's hammer yesterday; it felt really abrupt when there should've been more discussion leading up to it.

What was there to discuss? I mean, the site downtime didn't change who was scum or not. Five players were on the wagon, a sixth (Tyler) had given intent. Jake makes seven. That's about as much consensus as you're gonna get for a lynch. I mean, desmond literally conceded in the second-to-last post prior to the site's vacation.

What was going to get discussed that Jake deprived us of?

mostly I dislike the fact that it happened while there was still a pending replacement.

[xyzzy]

I definitely think Dunnstral's townie claim (which I asked about in 993) is a fairly crucial piece of information given his response to my question about it in 994, and I'm really curious what other people think about it

I am going to deliberately not weigh in on this and suggest that everybody else do the same.

if Dunnstral is scum, toolenduso is almost certainly also scum, and vice versa. I don't think Dunnstral is scum, so I don't think toolenduso is either, but if Dunnstral is lynched today and is scum, toolenduso is a very good choice tomorrow.

I definitely need to reread Jaack's ISO but I'm going to bed now, so I'll do that tomorrow. I feel like the case against him is a solid one? I dunno I'll see when I reread. night y'all

[xyzzy]

I think I was misunderstanding part of the interaction that was going on when I made my post about toolenduso last night--partially because I was speedreading through about 6 new pages of posts. I do think that anyone who had a strong reason to believe that Dunnstral was a cop day 2 would have killed him as scum, and toolenduso is the most obvious person to fill that role.

I never got as far in my logic yesterday as deciding that Dunnstral might be a cop yesterday; I knew that one of his statements had to be incorrect, but I was having a hard time working out which one, and I didn't try to work all the way through the logical implications of both.

I believe Bins' claim; I think it would've been a completely pointless claim if she were scum, and I find her crumbing plausibly real.

I agree with the statement someone made that Creature's reads post (1868) feels like it says very little. most of the game so far I've felt that Keyser was probably town, though, so I don't really like the idea of a Creature lynch right now.

I read through Jaack's ISO and felt like the shift against Dunnstral wasn't as strong as others seemed to imply it was.

anyway I still don't think Dunnstral is scum

[xyzzy]

I like enough of what Keyser did while in this game to not feel strongly that Creature is scum, but I'm not a big fan of how Creature himself has played so far. I definitely am having a problem with seeing everyone as too town and not committing. I guess by process of elimination I'd have to go with Creature as the most scummy player at this point (I feel like Jake's claim probably makes him town). I think probably the most compelling piece of information for me here is that I feel like all of the people who are voting for Creature have valid reasons for doing so right now, whereas the votes on Dunnstral don't feel good to me at all. with that in mind I'm gonna

VOTE: Creature

[xyzzy]

that's L-1 btw

[xyzzy]

my apologies for not posting the last couple days—I've been pretty sick on top of some personal life things going on, so I've been awake a total of about 24 of the last 72 hours. luckily there wasn't that much reading to catch up on.

I don't see how Dunnstral's claim could've possibly been made as scum; we can argue about whether it was a good move as town as much as we want, but that's irrelevant if there's no good reason for it to be done as scum. I don't think it was, and I don't think there's any reason to believe it was.

I'm going to focus on rereading toolenduso's ISO in the next 24 hours or so, as he's the player who I feel most neutral about at the moment.

[xyzzy]

Dunnstral is a terrible choice for a lynch, let's not lynch Dunnstral.

after some rereading I've come to the conclusion that most of my town lean on Jaack was due to things I agreed with on day one, but Jaack has been worse the last couple of days. next up I'm gonna spend some time rereading Tyler, who's next on my "I liked this person on day 1, but I haven't necessarily had strong feeling about them since then, so let's go reassess" list.

[xyzzy]

Jaack that's really flawed logic because at #2 you say something is probably the case but then at #4 you act as if that thing *must* be the case. I'm really not a fan of that argument at all.

I'm a tiny bit tipsy right now and I'm about to sleep so if this is poorly worded that's why and I know this is a really tiny response to a lengthy thing but those are m'thoughts

[xyzzy]

shit, my math is bad, I didn't realize I'm at L-1. I'll uneventfully claim if anyone would like me to.

[xyzzy]

I'll

uneventfully

claim if anyone would like me to.

I mean, you basically just did.

that's true, yeah.

Can somebody posts some reasons why xy is scum? I can't seem to find them in the posts where the votes were made.

Here:

HA's interactions with...

(snip)

xyzzy:

-Only three mentions of xyzzy in HA's ISO, and two of them are when he's using xyzzy to explain his townread on Dunn.
-The third is in his readslist in #281, and it's an underdeveloped townread on xyzzy.
-This is maybe partner material.

Spoiler: xyzzy

-The three posts from #34-#42 are potentially scummy, and people noted it at the time. Xyzzy goes after Dunn in a kind of provocative way, only to keep their vote on Jaack and not really come to a conclusion on Dunn. Xyzzy's explanation in #59 is that the game is still early and they're going to wait to see what Dunn does later in the day. Just seems like it could be scum searching for a good first wagon to build momentum on without wanting to be too central in the push.
-I didn't notice this before, but in #89 (xyzzy's first post-by-post analysis), they talk about at least two of their own posts...a little bizarre, since I would think the point of a post-by-post analysis would be to scumhunt. Adding in a post from themself just seems like filler.
-I noted before that xyzzy's vote on zachstral in #89 was an "easy" vote to make. In #158, xyzzy responds to my point by saying that it's partially just a vote to get Zachstral to talk. The problem with that is that Zachstral had actually been posting quite a bit relative to other players at that point, while floof had only posted once and HA hadn't posted at all.
-The approach to Jake in #174 also bugs me a bit. Jake had naked voted Zachstral, and xyzzy responded by asking Jake about his reasons -- normally might come across as town to me, but xyzzy specified that they were fine with votes on Zachstral. Seems like trying to come across as suspicious while simultaneously trying to keep Jake's vote on Zachstral.
-#286 only adds to that weirdness, because xyzzy says Jake is scum and then says they're going to keep their vote on Zachstral. No mention of the fact that Jake was voting Zachstral, nor the implications for Zachstral's alignment if Jake -- who was voting Zachstral -- was scum.
-Xyzzy agrees with a point from HA that I thought did not make a whole lot of sense in #393.
-The turnaround on HA #447, #561 and #566 does seem kind of...opportunistic, for lack of a better word. It's just that xyzzy didn't pay a ton of attention to HA up until that point, and actually had kept their vote on Zachstral for most of the game. Then when HA gets close to being lynched, Xyzzy reassesses and gets on board with an HA lynch.
-Should be noted that xyzzy comes out against a Robert lynch in #652. If nothing else this tells us that if Xyzzy is scum, scum expected HA to die from the doc claim.
-In #852, xyzzy defends the all-D1 Zachstral vote by saying it seemed more productive than a Jake vote. This doesn't really make a ton of sense to me; I don't remember much of any pressure on Zachstral yesterday.

Overall xyzzy looks worse than I thought. The interactions with HA (from both perspectives) are not good, the posting and voting arcs are a little confusing and possibly event contradictory, and there's a general air of trying not to open themselves up too much.

To narrow it down further, I think there's one scum in {Xyzzy/Tyler} and one in {Creature, Jaack}.

(snip)

Xyzzy:

-Again, Xyzzy responding to their own posts in #89 makes it seem like the post-by-post analysis is just filler on show to look like they're doing work. And again, the Zachstral vote was an easy one to make.
-Don't like xyzzy questioning ira but then softening the blow of it by saying they don't necessarily disagree in #158. Comes across, again, like they're trying to do work but lack conviction in it.
-Same deal when questioning Jake's vote of Zachstral in #174.
-#447 and #561 is Xyzzy coming back and, after not doing much of anything with HA up until that point, deciding to go back and reread HA's ISO. Then Xyzzy comes back with a scumread on HA. This is all happening with HA at L-1 -- this is a scummy-looking turnaround.
-Xyzzy didn't go for Robert after the macho claim in #652, noted.
-Xyzzy being happy about Tyler not dying in #698 seems like it might be a like "hey look I didn't know who was going to die!" moment. Like trying to sound ignorant.
-It kinda looks even worse in the context of #852. The reason xyzzy said they were happy Tyler was alive was because they were curious about a post Tyler made D1 saying to lynch Xyzzy or floof on D2. Then, after bringing up that post (could be an attempt to get some momentum going on the floof slot), Xyzzy votes for zakk.
-#1626 is more of xyzzy explicitly stating something to show that they didn't know what the night kill was going to be.
-I'm also a little leery of xyzzy saying in #2001 that Robert's claim "probably" makes him town. I should think it's the closest thing to a guarantee that Jake is town that we could get short of him being an innocent child. It just kind of seems like xyzzy is taking pains to be careful and cover all their bases, especially since they previously were talking about believing Bins' claim, which came after Jake's claim.

I'll go point through point talking about my thoughts, because I haven't really fully responded to a lot of this:

-I don't personally feel that h_a's limited interactions with me are indicative of me being scum, or necessarily of anything at all.
-34/42/59 -- I basically didn't get what Dunnstral was doing at all at this point in the game; I was being cautious to avoid making dumb early mistakes.
-89 -- I mostly was just trying to contextualize my earlier posts and offer followup to them based on how others had responded; doing that in response to my own posts seemed like a reasonable solution given the fact that a lot of people had said things regarding my posts, and there was no strong reason to pick anyone's response to specifically say something about.
-158 -- Zachstralkita was talking a lot at that point, but it was nothing but filler.
-174 -- I don't want someone voting for someone without a clearly stated reason. if he had motives that didn't feel faked for doing so, I would've been happy with his vote being where it was.
-286 -- finding one person scummy but not as scummy as the person you're voting for isn't really a good reason to move your vote.
-393 -- I generally feel like the move of just directly asking someone a question like "are you scum?" to see their reaction has some validity; later, there was reason to question h_a's use of this, but I don't think the basic concept is an inherently flawed one.
-447/561/566 -- "It's just that xyzzy didn't pay a ton of attention to HA up until that point" -- I'd pretty much agree; once I started paying attention I saw problems.
-852 -- that's fair. I agree that, in retrospect, my day 1 voting didn't accomplish a whole lot.
-158 (2) -- asking "why do you believe this thing you said is true?" isn't indicative of disagreement; in this case, I was basically neutral on the subject.
-652 -- I'm not really sure what you mean by this.
-698 -- I was genuinely super curious about Tyler's post, more due to the call to lynch me than anything else.
-852 -- as noted, my interest in that post had far more to do with my mention on it.
-1626 -- I was surprised, because I had felt confident up until that point that Zachstralkita was scum, and that was my genuine real life reaction.
-2001 -- I'll agree that the timing of that was pretty poor for me.

I've gotta admit, I've kind of had most of my energy drained from me in this game, and I've not been nearly as active or attentive for much of it as a result; I've been somewhat sick for about 2 weeks now, and I've also been dealing with some really bad personal things that have taken away a lot of my motivation, and on top of that, there was a period where every single time I returned to the thread there were 5-10 new pages, which hasn't really been great for my ability to meaningfully focus on this game. if I happen to live, I'll definitely be trying harder as I get back to normalcy, but I just wanted to apologize for my significantly lower contributions to the game lately. I think those factors are part of what's making me look scummy right now, which is obviously bad for me, but in general it's just bad for the game as well, so I'm sorry my real life issues have been getting in the way of the game lately.

[xyzzy]

this was mentioned a long while ago in the thread, but the change to godfather being blacklisted in normal games went into effect in April, and Zulfy entered the mod queue well before then, so this game was eligible to have one; however, I think the gambit of pretending to not know this fact as evidence that you can't be one would be... a really dangerous plan, to say the least, so I don't think the scenario where Dunnstral is a godfather is plausible at all. and I think the fact that Dunnstral as a godfather would logically have to know that there is a cop (in order for his role to make any sense in the context of this game) means that the fake claim is way too dangerous to be worth it.

[xyzzy]

alright

[xyzzy]

1)I can't believe you changed anime jazz hands. on the other hand Ibuki is pretty great.

2)I agree:

VOTE: Jaack

[xyzzy]

would I have put Creature at L-1 and then not move my vote once the wagon on him almost completely dried up if I was his scum partner? I doubt very much that I would've done so. me being scum forces Creature and me to have been bussing each other to a really extreme degree yesterday.

Bins, who did you target last night and what was the result (unless you have some strongly compelling reason to not share that information? but I dunno what such a reason would look like or if one would reasonably exist)

[xyzzy]

...I was thinking earlier as I was about to take a nap, a 4 player scum team seems incredibly unlikely in a game with a bodyguard and a macho cop.

[xyzzy]

I'm probably going to die, and I'm not sure there's anything I can personally do to prevent that at this point, so... please find scum tomorrow and hopefully I'll be less incompetent in any future games I play with any of you.

[xyzzy]

I don't really follow a lot of the logic behind arguments that toolenduso might be scum, but his writing in those last few posts feels a lot more aggressive/defensive than he previously was, and that significant tonal shift following pressure on him bothers me.

[xyzzy]

well, of course it's because of the sudden increased pressure on you, but it feels less like trying to benefit the town by avoiding a mislynch and more like trying to save your own skin; it feels desperate, and given the relative positions of the town and scum at this point, desperation makes a lot more sense for scum.

[xyzzy]

I think either a Jaack or toolenduso lynch would provide worthwhile info, but I think I'm leaving more towards toolenduso now.

VOTE: toolenduso

[xyzzy]

nice.

the entire dead thread on the last day was just so much tension waiting to see if you'd make the correct choice. which you did! it was fun.

[xyzzy]

also there's a ton of people from this game who are now high on my "I'd like to play again with this person" list

[xyzzy]

also there's a ton of people from this game who are now high on my "I'd like to play again with this person" list

anime jazz hands is love, anime jazz hands is life