Picking up Prod.
I have been intending on doing a re-read, and hadn't got around to it until now.
For now,
Unvote
.
charlatan wrote:@Adam and charter: what are your thoughts on the RVS and its usefulness?
Looking back, this post strikes me as odd. Why just those individuals?
Devestation wrote:Albany Park?
unvote
btw.
Why the unvote?
Scott Brosius wrote:Any reason for a third vote on me with no explanation when we are pretty much still in the RVS?
If it's RVS, is a "fake" or "ridiculous" reason necessary? This comes off as a little bit of fear. At three votes.
charter wrote:
Here, have another vote!
Vote Scott Brosius
? I really don't know what to make of this. However, your response to Snake in 66 gives it more light, and makes sense to me.
Devestation wrote:You cant seriously expect to pull off a bandwagon lynch in the RVS...
Unvote so we don't have any accidents
Could see this as concerned townie, or scum appearing concerned townie.
charter wrote:What do you mean "doesn't excuse charter"? What is wrong with piling on the largest bandwagon?
Is this a serious question? The problem is, I feel this post is a null-tell, because I feel this is a bad post for scum and town alike to make. AKA agree with SC's 58.
I agree with Sajin's 63 about Dev. Then see my 65.
At this point, I found SB's interest at him being L-4 weird, as well as Charter's vote.
charter wrote:What do you mean set off your alarm? You think my bandwagoning was scummy, or what? I think bandwagons are extremely protown, the bigger, the better in my experience. If we brought Scott to L-2 or L-1 for no other reason than "just because" it would be much to my liking.
This can't be serious. It is one of the most asanine takes I've ever heard on bandwagons.
charter wrote:
I don't think a quickhammer is as bad as people make it out to be. Also, you seem to write off the possibility of Scott being scum, in which case I don't think a quickhammer on him would be bad at all.
Sentence 1: Why?
Sentence 2: A blatantly obvious statement, yet trying to make it look like actual analysis.
Snake wrote:
I didn't say Scott wasn't scum. Quite frankly it's way to early to tell in his case. A quickhammer can be bad as it doesn't always guarantee scum and and a mislynch is rarely good, if ever.
More blatantly obvious statements.
Snake wrote:
Because everyone's vote was part of the RVS. You voted Scott without reason
and
said you think he's scum. When you don't provide a reason, it's scummy because it looks like you're only on the bandwagon to push a mislynch.
Extremely good point.
Devestation wrote:...and "just leaving it [the vote] there" will ultimately be more scummy in the long run. I'm much more worried about this pointless wagon against scott brosius.
Sentence 1: Keeping an RVS vote on until you find a real vote is not scummy at all, IMO. It seems like you are trying to overcompensate and look overly pro-town, and trying to look way into the future, thinking "Will someone eventually find this scummy?" Scummy behavior.
Sentence 2: Your unvote of snake happened before the bandwagon of SB. Thus, your unvote cannot be at all tied to the pointless wagon on SB, thus rendering this reasoning null and void. A wagon after your unvote can't be tied into the reason for your unvote.
charter wrote:No. When I voted him, I had no idea who was scum. Devastation's plea for people to unvote I found extremely scummy of him (almost enough to earn a lynch) and makes Scott look very scummy as well, even though Scott hasn't done hardly anything himself I find scummy.
I do agree it makes Dev look scummier, but for SB, it's a null tell, as his alignment is not dependant on Dev's "defense". It can be that Dev is buddying with town, or defending scumbuddy. AKA I agree with Snake's interpretation. Just because Dev defended SB, doesn't make SB scummier at all. It makes Dev scummier, completely independant of SB's alignment. What I am saying is, that I completely dislike your reason for finding SB scummy (because Dev defended him). It's a null tell.
charter wrote:
Devastation is trying to stop others from scumhunting by quashing this wagon. He is trying to rob us of Scott's reactions to a large wagon on himself. If Scott crumbles under the pressure and one or two people come to his aide, looks like we have ourselves some scum. If he ignores it, knowing that nothing will actually come from five votes on him with no reason given, I'm much more inclined to think he's town.
I think this perception is slightly jaded.
charter wrote:
How do you say I'm scummy and trying to push a mislynch? In the post where I voted, there's nothing that says I'm trying to push a mislynch. Nowhere in any of my posts do I say or imply that. Here you have taken up the assumption Scott can't be scum, for all I know Scott is scum.
WIFOM. I do think Snake's use of the word mislynch is intriguing, because it does seem to imply he knows Scott isn't scum.
charter wrote:
I thought my reason was pretty self explainatory, I was just bandwagoning. Yeah, bandwagoning is very protown, best way of scumhunting in the RVS I know of. If you wagon someone fast for no reason, you get to see their reactions (and those of other people) which is great for determining their alignment. There's no way we have a jester, and if we do, fuck this game then.
I can see your point of view, but you seem to be taking it to too much of an extreme for me. Not indicative of alignment, but of game theory. Yeah, but wagoning fast for no reason also makes you look scummier.
I think Konowa is strawmanning Snake hardcore. In my opinion, toy both are misinterpreting the situation. Konowa thinks Snake thinks that Dev's deflation of RVS wagon is not scummy. What snake is trying to say is that he (and I agree) thinks that Charter's vote staying on SB because Dev defended him is scummy. Again, I already have said how I feel about Dev's defense of SB: Makes Dev scummier, and is not dependant on SB's alignment. Dev, if scum, is either defending town to gain town points if SB is lynched, or trying to defend scumbuddy. The former seems more likely, as scum have more information (knowing alignments) and can act accordingly.
Dramonic asking why there are so many lynch candidates after RVS, and that people need to act accordingly, while keeping his vote without explaining why is scummy. Looks like he is scrounging for information.
Scott Brosius wrote:StrangerCoug, you seem deathly afraid of losing a townie, to the point where I think you are scum trying too hard to appear town. I don't want to lose townies either, but as I already stated, sometimes this helps in the long run. Scum please feel free to attempt to use this to vote me under the guise that I don't care about losing townies.
Unvote, Vote:StrangerCoug
Agree on everything here. In the long run, if a townie is lost early (which statistically happens more often than not) one can look later at how other's reacted/defended/attacked/buddied them, after their alignment is revealed. This information helps.
Also, SC even admits to voting someone for their game theory.
dramonic wrote:I cant believe people are still voting Dev. Seriously, he's about as scummy as a can of tuna fihs (that's not scummy, by the way)
Why do you think he isn't scummy? Who do you think IS?
dramonic wrote:no, I'm voting because Charter is writing messages to aliens with his burning grass.
Honestly, I currently have no other good target for my vote, so I'd rather it stays on a player I find anti-town. I could put it on SC too, but Charter is more anti-town to me.
I don't want him lynched, but pressure is always a good thing. I'll unvote if we get too close to lynching.
Your vote is currently null n' void now.
If you don't want him lynched, why vote him? Pressure, huh? Announcing it removes it. Seems like fencesitting.
By the end of page 6, it seems almost all of the votes in this game are for game theory.
dramonic wrote:I see, I don't consider that particularly scummy though.
Well, now that we're clear on that, if one of the 5 lurkers could post something analysis worth... considering their ridiculously low amount of posts, they better have good cases coming up.
Seems like a little bit of deflecting.
As SC points out in 204, Dev's posts about his opinions on the game don't add up. Dev doesn't want to lynch Charter, and thinks SC is scummy for wanting to, but find Charter's opinion the biggest scumtell. So you and SC both think Charter's stance is a scumtell, but you consider SC suspicious for it? Very contradictory. Dev's 209 is a clear deflection.
I completely dislike Charter's scumpairing on page 9: it's way too early for that. Not to mention, I am under the general notion that scumpairing early is anti-town and scummy. It's like saying "If X is town, Y MUST be scum," which is not always the case. Also, if one shows up town, it's implied you think the other is town, which is not necessarily true.
I do like Charter's 230 though, attacking dramonic. Dramonic's response is noteworthy as well with his confirm vote on Charter. OMGUS?
charlatan wrote:By the way, just as a reminder, let's make sure we all remember to look at loud people tomorrow. It's probably a pretty safe bet that scum will whack someone active to leave us with lurkers, so it will be worth noting. If StrangerCoug is killed, for instance, ask yourself why myself, Charter, et al were not, etc.
Really? Night speculation before it happens? Wow.
Devestation wrote:Sorry, I thought you said that the biggest scumtell of anyone is who they have voted.
Also, I was thinking about the general inactivity of the people playing this game, as the last post that I had read before making that post had the writer commenting about it.
Claim time.
I am a cop. Each night I can determine the alignment of one other player. I win when everyone opposed to the town are dead.
Ugh. Cop claim. Great. Do I still think Dev is scum? Yes. Do I think he is Cop? No. His play as of yet is clearly NOT indicative of cop play.
charter wrote:Ugh. How did I freakin' know he was going to claim something good.
unvote, vote dramonic
I'm not cop.
Devestation, how did you come up with the wording you used there? Is it all your own words or was it a paraphrase? Why did you not claim before? Why did you need time to think about it?
NO ONE COMMENT ON THAT, EXCEPT DEVESTATION!!!
If you don't answer this soon, I'm going to revote you no matter what, because dodging this question practically guarantees you're scum.
I also think it would be best if everyone can claim cop or not cop as fast as possible and assuming that doesn't take too long, keep discussion to a minimum.
Reasoning for voting dramonic after unvote, given your stance on Dev?
Konowa wrote:
Also D1 cop/not cop proposition is extremely scummy.
Completely agree.
charter wrote:You don't think we should see if there is a counter?
It's D1. In NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM should a cop CC on D1. Ever.
charter wrote:I think it's dumb to lynch an uncountered cop day one. Either everyone claims cop or not cop and we can lynch him if someone counters, or no one says anything on it and we lynch someone else and deal with Devestation on a later day if he's still around.
Everyone keeping their mouth shut and then lynching an uncountered cop is too idiotic to comprehend in my book. This is why I don't understand why you guys are A) keeping your vote on Devestation and B) refusing to see if there is a counterclaim. If no one wants to claim cop/not cop, that's fine, but we shouldn't lynch Devestation today.
unvote, vote dramonic
since it wasn't in the last votecount.
I'm still kind of torn now with the Dev situation. No doubt we should NOT have a CC D1. At the same time, I would normally say "D1 Cop Claim shouldn't be lynched." But I just can't avoid the fact that Dev's responses and situation up to his claim to not make sense to me at all. Refusing to defend himself, etc. is not cop play.
Devestation wrote:Devestation, how did you come up with the wording you used there? Is it all your own words or was it a paraphrase?
-Paraphrase
Why did you not claim before?
-Nobody wanted me to and I didnt think I was actually going to be lynched yet (I'm always a little like that).
Why did you need time to think about it?
-Because I wasnt sure whether I wanted to bother. Every time I post something I run into a brick wall that nobody else seems to run into, and a really strong, sadistic and anti-town part of me wants ya'll to find out what I am the hard way to get back at you for it. Yes, Cop <-> Town communication is at an all time low. *Insert RATM music here*
Pretty basic paraphrase. It's slightly different from mine, but since it's so basic, it's a null tell at this point, especially since he says paraphrase.
Almost everyone wanted a claim.
All are very not-cop behaviors.
SC answering for Sajin in 275 is noted, especially since dramonic specifically asked Sajin.
Charter does try and elicit rolefishing with the copclaim on D1.
I generally agree with Charlatans 287. The thing is, Charlatan says his role PM is exactly like Dev's, yet Dev paraphrased. Which means it necessarily isn't exactly like yours. Not to mention, mine is different from what both of you said. Thus, that statement from Charlatan I find as slightly scummy. Charlatan says his role PM is EXACTLY like Dev's PARAPHRASE, and asks town players to look. Well, mine is different than both of yours. Just something to sink our teeth into.
So, who do I think is scummy?
Dev, dramonic, Charter, and just slightly Konowa and SC.
So what is Dev at, right now? And Charter, as well?
AKA I'd like to see a vote count. Not to mention avoid a no-lynch.
