Mini 1830 - Game Over

[eagerSnake]

So to finish up I'd like to hear your hypothetical scum team.

Manuel is throwing suspicion on Square, but not voting or FOS'ing. That makes me suspect a Manuel/Square scum team is a possibility.

VOTE: Square World

[House]

So to finish up I'd like to hear your hypothetical scum team.

Manuel is throwing suspicion on Square, but not voting or FOS'ing. That makes me suspect a Manuel/Square scum team is a possibility.

VOTE: Square World

Why wouldn't it be scum casting shade on town?

[Manuel87]

So to finish up I'd like to hear your hypothetical scum team.

Manuel is throwing suspicion on Square, but not voting or FOS'ing. That makes me suspect a Manuel/Square scum team is a possibility.
VOTE: Square World

I explained that it felt awkward that he only mentioned your summary on Rhazh but that doesnt mean i have to scumread him for that.
Also why would i throw suspicion on him if he was my scumbuddy?

[Gamma Emerald]

Distancing/Buddying

[eagerSnake]

Why wouldn't it be scum casting shade on town?

I suppose it could be, but I feel like he wouldn't have chainsaw-defended him and would have more than just a 'null' read on the slot if that was the case.

Also why would i throw suspicion on him if he was my scumbuddy?

And this is a classic WIFOM defense.

[Manuel87]

Distancing/Buddying

no if i wanted to distance myself from him i would voted him what good does pointing out one minor detail do in form of distancing?
I dont see how this would help me buddy someone can you explain why you would think like that?

[Manuel87]

Why wouldn't it be scum casting shade on town?

I suppose it could be, but I feel like he wouldn't have chainsaw-defended him and would have more than just a 'null' read on the slot if that was the case.

Also why would i throw suspicion on him if he was my scumbuddy?

And this is a classic WIFOM defense.

And this is a classic "i dont know an answer"

[Gamma Emerald]

Distancing/Buddying

no if i wanted to distance myself from him i would voted him what good does pointing out one minor detail do in form of distancing?
I dont see how this would help me buddy someone can you explain why you would think like that?

I meant Bussing, not buddying.

[eagerSnake]

And this is a classic "i dont know an answer"

There are plenty of reasons for why scum would throw suspicion on their buddy, and it's almost impossible to know which reason it is. I think you know that already. So why even ask that question? And then why doubtcast me just because I didn't drink your wine?

[Manuel87]

And this is a classic "i dont know an answer"

There are plenty of reasons for why scum would throw suspicion on their buddy, and it's almost impossible to know which reason it is. I think you know that already. So why even ask that question? And then why doubtcast me just because I didn't drink your wine?

Where did i doubtcast you? I simply asked you a question about your read that you still refuse to answer.
Even if there are plenty (i disagree with that statement btw) you should have had one in mind when you used the argument which on is it?
Also let me rephrase it a little. Why would i throw shade on my buddy in that situation?

[eagerSnake]

You doubtcasted me by saying I "don't know an answer" to why you would cast shade on your partner, even though that question is apparently WIFOM, as I stated.

You've left yourself open to voting them later for town-credit, while at the same time chainsaw-defending him, and also fence-sitting the slot.

Why would i throw shade on my buddy in that situation?

So you could say exactly this?

[eagerSnake]

And yes, it could also be buddying. If you're scum and square's town, then it makes sense for you to keep yourself open to lynching him later (via shade-cast and fence-sitting), while at the same time chainsaw-defending him (buddying).

[House]

Buzz buzz buzz

[Manuel87]

At best it would be suspicious if i voted for him when he is getting lynched for sure after that.
Do you say my argument is wrong that its awkward to only mention your read on Rhazh?
Other then you i will not lynch someone for his playstyle. Your argument about everyone starting as scummy is just an easy way of excusing a push on more passive players.
How is that buddying? Also keeping myself open for lynching him later is bullshit since that would be suspicious af.
I am still confident in my Jester vote but i think Eager is the best lynch for today.
UNVOTE: The_Jester
VOTE: EagerSnake

[eagerSnake]

VOTE: Manuel87

I'm lynching in Manuel and Square today. One or both are scum.

[eagerSnake]

If Square's town: You would cast-shade on Square if he's town because that leaves yourself open to lynching him if you have to. You would chainsaw-defend him to buddy him because if you don't have to be a part of lynching him you could say "I was defending him."

If Square's scum: You would also cast-shade on Square if he's your buddy because that leaves yourself open to lynching him if you have to for town-credit. You would chainsaw-defend him to keep him from being lynched.

[eagerSnake]

Then, when called out on it, you take immediately to the WIFOM, almost as if you had already pre-planned to say "why would I do it as scum?"

Fact is your interaction with Square makes absolutely no sense, and leaves yourself open to change stances, and I would be very surprised if that's coming from town.

[Manuel87]

Then, when called out on it, you take immediately to the WIFOM, almost as if you had already pre-planned to say "why would I do it as scum?"

Fact is your interaction with Square makes absolutely no sense, and leaves yourself open to change stances, and I would be very surprised if that's coming from town.

Actually if i changed stance on him right now that would be suspicious as i mentioned 2 times already so that argument is pretty bad at best.
I also mentioned that i had a similar read on on a player that wasnt to different from square in my first game here so tell me more about how it doesnt make sense.

So what is your reason for reading me scum?
Is your reason for reading Square scum still the same?

[eagerSnake]

Manuel, you should add [wifom] tags for clarity.

Examples:

[wifom]Why would i throw shade on my buddy in that situation?[/wifom]

[wifom]Also why would i throw suspicion on him if he was my scumbuddy?[/wifom]

[wifom]if i wanted to distance myself from him i would voted him[/wifom]

Also, you are more concerned about looking suspicious than determining his alignment.

Actually if i changed stance on him right now that would be suspicious

My reasons for you being scum are clear, and Square also.

[eagerSnake]

Other then you i will not lynch someone for his playstyle. Your argument about everyone starting as scummy is just an easy way of excusing a push on more passive players.

So for you, everyone starts with no suspicion, and they accumulate it as they post? That line of thought will lead to scum lurking their way to a win.

[eagerSnake]

At best it would be suspicious if i voted for him when he is getting lynched for sure after that.
Do you say my argument is wrong that its awkward to only mention your read on Rhazh?
Other then you i will not lynch someone for his playstyle. Your argument about everyone starting as scummy is just an easy way of excusing a push on more passive players.
How is that buddying? Also keeping myself open for lynching him later is bullshit since that would be suspicious af.
I am still confident in my Jester vote but i think Eager is the best lynch for today.
UNVOTE: The_Jester
VOTE: EagerSnake

^^ Scum need to come up with bogus arguments for calling townies scummy.

[Manuel87]

Other then you i will not lynch someone for his playstyle. Your argument about everyone starting as scummy is just an easy way of excusing a push on more passive players.

So for you, everyone starts with no suspicion, and they accumulate it as they post? That line of thought will lead to scum lurking their way to a win.

Partly correct but they also accumulate trust.
You are wrong they will have to make votes and from those votes you can read them later.

My reasons for you being scum are clear, and Square also.

I dont see any reason other then both of us presenting good arguments against you so please enlighten me.
Since you like acronyms i know one that fits you but i dont like it since i think its insulting so i wont use it.

[eagerSnake]

Also, I notice that Manuel seems to re-actively post only when someone mentions him, instead of pro-actively posting. Nearly 1/3 of his posts in this game are on this page, after I pointed out his association with Square. I'd say at least 2/3 of his posts if not more are similarly reactive. So I ask:

How much does he seem to care about finding scum?
How much does he seem to care about not getting lynched?
My answers are "barely if at all" and "quite a lot", respectively.

From my point of view i did more scumhunting then at least 6 other players in the game at that point.

Also this.. "at that point" refers to post 84. These are all his posts before 84 (4 posts), which doesn't look like he's doing much scumhunting to me:

Spoiler: Manuel's "scumhunting"

VOTE: Grendel

Sounds awful

VOTE: The_Jester

I like the idea

And what exactly do you like about it?

Well its similar to something i do when i play RT-Mafia with friends. I generally look for someone i know talks a lot and discuss ideas and speculations with that person while others can listen to it and argue if they disagree on something or agree with me/us. Its basically a way to keep the game going when you play with people that like to listen more then arguing.

And what exactly do you like about it?

Well its similar to something i do when i play RT-Mafia with friends. I generally look for someone i know talks a lot and discuss ideas and speculations with that person while others can listen to it and argue if they disagree on something or agree with me/us. Its basically a way to keep the game going when you play with people that like to listen more then arguing.

Yeah but the game hasn't even started rolling yet. I could see that strat used when people run out of ideas/motivation and the game goes silent but it doesn't seem like a valid opening.

Hmm i think you got a point. If you choose a random person at the start you might end up with someone that isnt really active and the idea is ruined.
On the other hand it might motivate the chosen player to be more active dont you think so?

is your avi log horizon? it's my fav anime lol

Yes it is.

For setup speculation my guess would be 3 maf and 3 town PRs.
2 maf would probably mean a 3rd party or our PRs are weak/limited to one-shot.
3 maf and 3rd party seems unlikely.

[eagerSnake]

I dont see any reason other then both of us presenting good arguments against you so please enlighten me.

"Good arguments?" I haven't seen any from you.. or him.. your sole argument for scumreading me throughout this game has been that my vote on Square was "very bad," which is basically calling me scum for scumhunting. Why not use the same logic for the other people who voted Square?

CCC also voted Square, why aren't you scumreading him for it?
Gamma Emerald also voted Square, same question.

[Huntress]

Eager, having just read this page I'm tempted to vote you purely for what I've read here, but I'll refrain for now as I still prefer to lynch CCC.

I'll be writing up my notes on you after dinner so I'll have more to say then.