Mini 1830 - Game Over

[eagerSnake]

page 23 question
who uses fos?

I use FoS when I want to state a firm suspicion on someone who is not the person I want dead next.(Because I vote who I want dead next)

[Square World]

page 28 question
k, gerryoat is more towny here, but who orders towniest to scummiest?

[Square World]

page 29
yeah, who's scum?

[Square World]

page 30 question
gerryoat, you're probtown, though why give huntress a free pass?

[Square World]

page 31
this?

My read on eager is mainly a gut read but I'll try to pin it down a bit.

Eager's posting felt off from his very first post. Most people who want to do something other than rvs to start discussion just do it. Eager made a point of drawing the players attention to what he was doing. He was too quick to call Gamma town in 70, especially in view of his statement that he starts with the assumption that everyone is guilty until proved innocent. I didn't like the second part of 80. If he thought Victor might be town with an ulterior motive then he should have waited to see what came of it rather than point it out. Either way it would have been better to wait for Victor's explanation first. His vote on Square in 600 was for an extremely flimsy reason. It was also for something that Manuel did, not Square. He's throwing the words "doubtcasting" and "WIFOM" around far too much and adding distracting stuff like 697.

Vote: eagerSnake

[Square World]

i'd say scum is in huntress, the_jester and victor, though maybe i accidentally excluded one scum from this list

[Square World]

what do you think there?

[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.

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?

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?

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).

I used 4 "buzzwords" here, but they all explained perfectly what Manuel was doing.

1.

He absolutely was

using a WIFOM defense.
"Also why would i throw suspicion on him if he was my scumbuddy?" "no if i wanted to distance myself from him i would voted him" "Why would i throw shade on my buddy in that situation?"

2.

He absolutely was

shadecasting Square.
"As i said i dont like his playstyle mainly because its easy to play the same way as scum."

3.

He absolutely was

doubtcasting me.
"And this is a classic "i dont know an answer"" (because I didn't answer the WIFOM question)

4.

He absolutely was

fence-sitting Square.
"Null: Square: As i said i dont like his playstyle mainly because its easy to play the same way as scum. His argument against Eager was good but as i said before it was awkward that he only referred to the Rhazh analysis." "I dont like his playstyle but i dont think thats a reason to lynch someone."

Now if you can argue that he wasn't doing those things, I'd like to hear it.

But you can't. Instead, you're trying to throw out evidence simply because it involves commonly used mafia terms. Terms that have been proven to describe mafia behaviors. What's worse, you're trying to take the fact I was calling out his behaviors, and turn it against me, with only the reason of "buzzwording," rather than actually looking at his behavior and deciding if he's guilty of what he's accused of, which he is.

[eagerSnake]

How is Manuel town? I don't see it.

He's coasting. His "readslist" is literally a copy+paste of stuff he said already in his older posts into a new post. I don't see the dynamic character I would expect from a townie. I don't see the town motivation in his posts. His character is flat, and that is indicative of scum. He's active lurking. Only popping in to post as soon as he's mentioned, otherwise absent. His defenses are completely indicative of scum defense.

One of the differences between the town POV and the scum POV is that townies are searching, while scum are hiding. That means that townies tend to dig for info, look at various players, and give opinions. Scum tend to avoid digging or giving opinions, for fear that it will draw attention. Which of these two fits Manuel?

[eagerSnake]

what do you think there?

I think your recent posts seem to be more of a pro-town attempt to move the game forward, rather than a scum attempting to avoid their lynch - you gave opinions, looked for scummy people, read the entire game, your read-progression seems genuine, and makes sense. You didn't crack or get frustrated from the pressure. You didn't get so caught up in your own defense that you stopped looking at other people. You actually managed to alleviate my suspicions, and you do seem to be trying to find the scum.

VOTE: Manuel87

[Gamma Emerald]

I agree mostly with Eager on Square, but I don't like his flooding of the game.

[eagerSnake]

I agree mostly with Eager on Square, but I don't like his flooding of the game.

I wish he would've put it all into one post, and obviously explained more, but my theory is that he was probably phone-posting using the quick-reply feature at the bottom of each page as he read through them.

[eagerSnake]

Why does House jump on your case for assuming things, but he doesn't seem to care that Square also assumes things. Square assumes that everyone knows exactly what he means, without an explanation, and that everything he says is "auto-explainable." Shouldn't House be calling him out for this, like he did to you? Or did he only attack you for it because it was convenient for him? How did it feel from your POV?

[Gamma Emerald]

Can you quote where Square did this?

[eagerSnake]

281 is where he says it's auto-explainable if he quotes something.

Spoiler: Square not explaining things, because to him it's all auto-explainable

VOTE: Manuel87

try to guess why

@Gren

I fos RhazhBash , hence the vote. I think you have had townie lines like i've explained. I don't see the rush in making reads when we aren't even 10 pages in yet. But, I'd be confident lynching RhazhBash the most right now

lol

VOTE: gerryoat

In my previous post, I suggested that VictorDeAngelo and Gamma Emerald were pinging as very slightly scum. To that list I will now add GreenNope and Square World; the first for being completely absent, and the second for providing extremely short posts with no reasons for his votes. From these four, I will elect to park my vote (for the moment) on:

VOTE: Square World

How much scummier is Box World compared to Pokémon Remake Emerald, and Old Man Victor?

Also, stop self-metaing at the drop of a hat.

town

@Square: Why do you think Gerry is scum?

maybe you have to learn to see the post i quoted

@Gren

I fos RhazhBash , hence the vote. I think you have had townie lines like i've explained. I don't see the rush in making reads when we aren't even 10 pages in yet. But, I'd be confident lynching RhazhBash the most right now

lol

VOTE: gerryoat

isn't the quote auto-explainable there?

don't want to lynch Grendel, House, CCC, eagerSnake and VictorDeAngelo

anyone else just call me and i'll join

page 4
not really thinking manuel is scum anymore

gerryoat + the_jester maybe?

page 8
still think ccc is town

page 11
k guess victor is more towny there

page 12
ccc's reads are terrible

page 15
house and gamma strong town

page 16
feeling like everybody in this page is town

page 17
okay, gonna doubt my ccc townread

page 18
manuel town
gerryoat and his excuses
huntress still scum

page 24
ccc town
huntress not so scum anymore

i'd say scum is in huntress, the_jester and victor, though maybe i accidentally excluded one scum from this list

Basically from Square's POV if he tells us what he's talking about (A) and then what his conclusion is (B) we should be able to fill in the explanation of how he came from A to B.

[Gamma Emerald]

Okay. I don't really see a problem with it.

[eagerSnake]

He's assuming we know exactly what his thought process is. Didn't House have a huge problem with you assuming things?

[Gamma Emerald]

I assumed what other people were doing, not that people could follow my logic.

[eagerSnake]

Which is worse?

[Square World]

could consider gerryoat or manuel

[House]

could consider

gerryoat or manuel

eager

Fix't

[eagerSnake]

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.

Okay, so based on this post, we're expecting to see some reasoning behind why that page is so bad, right?

My read on eager is mainly a gut read but I'll try to pin it down a bit.

Here, she tries to play off her bad or non-existent reasons by throwing "gut" in there.

Eager's posting felt off from his very first post. Most people who want to do something other than rvs to start discussion just do it. Eager made a point of drawing the players attention to what he was doing. He was too quick to call Gamma town in 70, especially in view of his statement that he starts with the assumption that everyone is guilty until proved innocent. I didn't like the second part of 80. If he thought Victor might be town with an ulterior motive then he should have waited to see what came of it rather than point it out. Either way it would have been better to wait for Victor's explanation first. His vote on Square in 600 was for an extremely flimsy reason. It was also for something that Manuel did, not Square. He's throwing the words "doubtcasting" and "WIFOM" around far too much and adding distracting stuff like 697.

These reasons don't match up with what she said originally. At first, she claimed it was because the page with Me & Manuel. Then later made up a bunch of reasons, threw "gut" in there, and added one horribly bad point about that page at the end, which was piggy-backing off of what Manuel and House had already said.

Remember what I said earlier about scum making cases against town?

Scum do this because if they get away with it they can push for a town lynch without having to actually build a case themselves. I think scum hate building a case against town. When they build a case against town, they know it would be forced and full of misreps and would therefore make them look scummy.

They tend to more so piggy-back off others and they much more prefer to subtly swing momentum towards a town lynch without having to make any personal statements as of why they think that player is scum.

.

Her reasoning:
1. RVS (She's reaching, pulling straws, trying to spin an attempt to start discussion into something scummy, and admits to conf!bias by saying "I read your first post as scummy, so then I read the read of your posts as scummy, looking for easy lynch)
2. Quick to call Gamma town (She's piggy-backing what other's said, and grave-digging, I explained why I changed on him already)
3. 2nd part of 80 (She's calling me scum for making valid points/taking stances/engaging players)
4. Vote on Square, use of "buzzwords" (She's piggy-backing off of Manuel and House)

[House]

Lol.

[Gamma Emerald]

Which is worse?

I don't know. It's probably different from person to person. I guess mine is worse because I'm projecting what I think happened when I can't be sure.

[House]

Which is worse?

I don't know. It's probably different from person to person. I guess mine is worse because I'm projecting what I think happened when I can't be sure.

Ding ding ding!