J, why do you complain when I give you a town read?
At this point I would have to say, Dad is most likely scum. Their playing style is off and the well I will let hydraheadx explain that is a nice way of... Give me time to come up with why I said that.
So do you find the fact that they (Kuz/Soup) are playing as separate heads scummy in itself?
Long time no see. You're my favorite substitute teacher. It appears you're going to be much better at this than the professor. Your math adds up.
Later on you also say that you would be alright with my lynch, yet I don't remember seeing anything from you regarding a case or even suspicions until TC's case. Can you explain why you find me scummy?
Alright, so listen up, you braindead binomials.
Vote Hilt the independent what the **** ever.
The Professor flipped town and shocked me. Not gonna lie. Reread the game in night phase to try and figure out what was wrong with our equation and decided our math still added up, but we did note that Hilt hasn't been doing his own work. We then tried to factor him into a scum team, and nothing added up. He didn't factor, so I looked at his work again, and the math was still off. I thought about it and thought about it. I argued with myself and double checked my math, but the solution eluded me. Until I thought about solving for independent.
So Hilt, did you factor Seikend for us or run up against a doc/BP? Maybe you're a marker/piper or something even more obscure, but I'm thinking SK. I could be wrong and he could flip mafia, but I dunno what that helps me solve for. Feel free to point out other variables that he could help solve for, but I don't see it right now.
On to the math.
I saw this post mentioned a lot. I don't find the fact that AM thinks Hilt is specifically indy is a scum slip, the point I got from this is that he finds Hilt scummy, whether or not he thinks he's indy doesn't affect my read on him as long as he provides a reason for it, which he does in #861.
Not so much at your inactivity but more to how you handled it. I'll go more indepth this time. Each of those posts where you said you'll come back later didn't have anything to say. You posted to show you were still around and held off actual discussion for the next post.
First one was pointing out the starting of a trend. It was at the beginning during the RVS, so it's not that serious at that point, but I wanted to show just how many times you do this.
Second one, you/Gordito/LST/whoever attack the inactivity and follow it with saying 'let's hunt scum', only to turn around in the next paragraph and say you don't have time to scumhunt and will come back later. Um, what? You try to show how your town by wanting to do these, only you don't by holding it off for the next post.
I was not active in this game D1 and Gord was pushing off this game for other games/responsibilities. And D1 there was inactivity to the point where people might have to be modkilled/replaced and that was the inactivity that we found distressing because those are the people it's almost impossible to get a read on. We didn't have time to scumhunt by thoroughly reading the thread, and we were open about that.
Wording was bad here, but my point was you're a hypocrite for attacking inactives while being inactive yourself. It's not a very town thing to do. Attacking inactives is a way for lurking scum to look like they're contributing when they're not really doing anything to find scum. So all your bravo about improving activity comes off as hypocritical and scummy.
1) There were "inactives" in the way we were inactive, aka not able to post much and then there were inactives who were on the path to modkill/replacement and who gave us nothing to work with to read them and those are the people we were pushing, and 2) You say a whole lot about how we didn't contribute but you take things out of perspective. There were 4 pages at this point, most of which were from the same people and were people we had town reads on from their content thus far and we wanted reads on the rest of the player slot which can't happen if they don't post AT ALL.
Here you vote without giving an actual reason, then say you'll be back later. It's not a post to help the discussion or find scum. It's just a post showing how you're still around.
We didn't vote in that post, so I'm not sure what you are getting at here, but we did post our scum picks at the time.
Inactivity excuse is just that. An excuse for not participating actively. Another thing lurking scum may say along with 'I'll look at it later' to show how much they want to contribute to town discussion. Except they don't.
Also, how is letting another player to decide your read on someone a pro-town decision?
Once again, we were inactive at times D1, haven't denied that at all. Also you make it seem like we contributed nothing here even though this:
"I'm not 100% sold on Ruy scum atm, and it might warrant a reread, but for now, I think our best option is still upon Seikend (that 250 seems like an attempt to slide into the building Ruy wagon), Seph (half for his inactiveness, and half for the fact that his "coming back" post was really a big post saying a lot of nothing). I can't get a read on Dad, so I'm going to trust J to help me out with em (J what's your read on Dad?). Everybody else that I didn't mention are either town and fine for me, or inactive and vigbait."
Gives a pretty good idea of who our scum reads were and why. Also we stated pretty clearly that Dad was someone we were having trouble reading and asked a town read of ours to help get a read.
Right now I like Dad, Kuz/Soup remind me a lot of Axel in Celeb mafia, so I can understand why Panta's not a big fan of the intra-hydra disagreements but I liked their interactions with J, it seemed like they were pushing him to get a read on him, all seemed very T v. T to me.
Do I really need to explain what is wrong with your activity here? You've taken a stance and had reasons behind your vote, but when Hilt counters, you falter, say you'll come back to it, then don't. In fact, there's no mention of Hilt or why you suddenly decide Sang was better in your next post other then 'Told y'all that slot was scum'. You took your vote off Ignatius because:
and now that he is replaced and people start a wagon on his replacement, you jump off of Hilt and on to Sang without hesitation. It comes off as a scum flip-flopping from one wagon to another.
Our scum read wasn't on Hilt, it was Seikend. And Seikend responded and thought that our issue was that he didn't spoonfeed his reads to us, which wasn't the case, the issue was that he asked questions just for the sake of questions and then went nowhere with them, and never actually applied pressure to the people he listed as scum. We were suspicious of Ignatius and he never alleviated those suspicions, and I mentioned in my first post sans hydra why we found Sang's first post suspicious.
Pressure warranted for what? How could a vote on hydra for the sake of being a hydra point to scum motivation? In fact, it looked to me more like a random vote with a BS reason behind it. The vote was clearly ridiculous and nobody in their right mind would accept or follow that kind of logic.
There really was no RVS stage, so his vote needed an explanation. In particular, why in a game with 3 hydras did he decide to vote AM and why did he say that a hydra "just feels like an admission that both players feel like they aren't good enough to do one persons job" which is just a nice little shot to discredit hydras right off the bat. So I did want to see his response and his reason behind voting AM over Dad or myself.
Your lead was, once again, a player who who's vote was obviously ridiculous. The other player you hint at maybe being scum was Acro for the outburst in the last line in his post. You looked more interesting in say how people were town then how they can be scum. And a easy way for lurking scum to fly under the radar is to be friendly by point out how people are town then to step on their toes and call them scum.
I don't think that vote was obviously ridiculous, as stated above and once again...this was post #103 and other than there not being much conversation yet, most of the active player list seemed pretty townie at the time even though we were scumhunting. Ypu make it sound like we should have forced scum reads on people
A large part of it being town/null reads until a couple wagons formed by other players.
Still disagree.
Could you quote these questions? I just can't seem to find them. >_>
I thought I asked her about her intro post in my first solo post but really I just addressed concerns and she answered them, so I was wrong in saying they were questions but I remembered her responding to me and explaining her actions/reads and I felt better after her clarification. I asked her about her read on hilt in my #811.
You didn't state any particular thing RR did to look scummy, nor anything Seik did to turn null for you. The only reason are Seik's posts feel null, and RR's feel scummy. If you're going to vote someone just to help finish the wagon, at least come out and say it instead of covering it up with vague reasons like post feel.
I had said earlier that I didn't like RR in my #322, when he listed 7 people he was okay with dying and was getting all set to hop on the budding Seikend wagon. And while I would have rather had an Acrostic lynch at the time, I was quite upfront that RR was a scum pick and I would support his wagon because he was scummy, not just to finish the wagon.
First one is saying inactivity. The other two have to do with your actions when you do post. The second one is making an excuses for being and staying inactive. The third is just coming in to show you're still around and holding off posting real content for your next post.
It's all still about activity and it's just pounding it in.
Please link the posts proving this. Jumping on building bandwagons do not count. As AM would say, show you own work.
I'm not going to link every post where I scumhunted. Go and read #83 where we looked into Ignatius, or #103 where we talk about Seikend, or any of my posts solo.
Fluffing by the Ignatius vote and spend time talking about how bad inactivity is instead of posting real discussion, like
who is scum and
why. #124 and
#151 are the biggest offenders.
Ignatius vote was not fluff, you don't think that it warranted attention and I absolutely disagree. And I've already addressed not only those two posts but the push on inactives.
Talking about the activity problem is one thing. Talking about the activity so much that you don't actually add anything to is another (Again, #124 and #151). Especially when you yourself are inactive.
And once again I've already addressed this because it's just more about activity.
Not surprising considering I'm trying to lynch you.
Not surprising considering that none of your posts up this point have addressed anything other than me and your case against my activity, literally nothing else about yesterDay has been addressed in your posts.
Thoughts on the RR lynch yesterDay?
His voting choices have been ***.
AM thoughts on J|July? Would I be politically incorrect to say that they are buddying or is it just me being butthurt. Because the only justification I can see is neighbors|masons.
J and I buddy each other all the time, regardless of alignment.
Oh, so if I said that Hilt was scum and left ambiguous that he was indy then it wouldn't have been a problem at all. Only because I pointed out why I thought he was indy over mafia is it a problem? Indy and mafia do different things. Were you in Superheroes where I chased Gheb as SK (I was wrong, he was a weird off-Vig, but w/e)? I'm almost sure you've heard EE's war story about chasing an SK over mafia recently, but I don't think I've ever heard a dissenting opinion based on that. I think you're mafia and Hilt is indy, so you should definitely back up why you think he isn't sidelining. I outlined specifically why I think he is sidelining. It's because he isn't committing strongly to anything aside from RR past the point it was obviously going to happen and he never goes against the grain. Seriously, look back and cite examples as to where I'm wrong or explain why that doesn't add up to sidelining to you.
I said that I didn't see a J/July connection. You're both scum reads independent of each other. I wasn't concerned with it. July is more likely to flip scum than you. The only connection I've seen that I would go back and really dig into is J/Tandora.
Why Hilt over J or myself if J and I are scum reads?
Fair enough. I'll try to tone it down.It isn't just you.This is no better than what I last said to you :|
You're not actually accusing him of doing anything! Saying that you think he's scum is all fine and dandy, but because his playing style is off? You're playing extremely safe. I'd say it's because you said that you couldn't come to a reason for why I'm mafia, but fell on calling me Indy.
I pushed for RR strongly when it was up between him and Seikend, and defended Seik. It was not without-a-doubt going to go in the direction of a RR lynch. You ask for this but don't cite examples for why I'm guilty? Hmm.Eh. I wouldn't exactly call it a scum slip in this situation. It just seems like he's reaching for a reason to call me scum. Kind of funny.
AM's case on me so far is bordering on ignorable. I dislike how he says that he'll provide his full case at another time, yet demands thorough rebuttals... against his unfinished case. I'll respond to the points when he makes them. As things are now, though, "Hilt's sidelining and only jumping on convenient pushes" is going to need to be backed up. Now that I think about it, he didn't quote me once when he released what bit of his case he did.
Rereading Panta's posts right this moment.
AM v. Hilt: I like Hilt's response to the AM case, especially the bolded. AM's point seems to be that Hilt isn't in the fray of things, but doing an ISO on him he has been consistently pushing against Panta, Acrostic, and expressed suspicions of Dad and he pushed RR yesterDay. Both AM and Hilt are town reads for me, Hilt moreso than AM. Hilt's play has been more consistent while I feel AM yesterDay is different from AM toDay. Would like to hear the rest of their case on Hilt and some answers from them, but still leaning town.
General overview post. Indicates that this was prepared or at least thought-out to give this case focus. The premise is that I state things in a manner that give me "wiggle room" and therefore am scum.
Yes, consider that the thesis of my case
We PL'd RR because he was lynching inactives. He did commit to some other questionable actions, but the fact that he was focusing on inactives stood out as a primary reason as to why we started the lynch. More reasons came afterwards such as him joining the Seikend wagon for little to no reason and his voting behavior with little explanation. However at its base the RR lynch as a PL in my mind that resulted in an ML (because he was town).
I don't see that as a PL; his push on inactives was scummy because he wanted to PL them, but that was only the tip of the iceberg. He also devoted a lot of time to defending himself rather than scumhunting, and as you said his erratic voting behavior. So I'm still unsure of if you voted RR to complete the wagon, or because he was scummy.
I wanted to lynch Sephiroth because I had a feeling that he would be inactive throughout the game and I felt better with lynching him than either RR|Seikend. I believe that Seph is a "townier" read at the moment than either you or Dad even with his lack of content.
How do you feel about Seph's slot now that Nich has caught up?
Also when you say Seph is a "townier" read do you mean that the activity that he did provide had him leaning town, or that he (at this point, before the Nich catch up) was null and Dad and I are somewhere on the scummy side?
Also can you provide an updated read on Dad?
One factor that bothers me is that you don't bother to question J. It is one thing to have another player read you as town. However I would be slightly curious when someone defends me against accusations of being mafia. Instances I have seen of this is wrt D1 is Dad putting an initial fos on LST and J questioning him on it. A similar situation occurred today with travelingcat fosing you and J questioning him extensively. It seems like you have 0 curiosity with respect to J being a benefactor which led me to think that you could be masons because I don't see this relationship as being any indication of typical town play.
Even more than just a question of alignment, is the fact that you do not try to push a lynch outside of J's direction. Most of your posts come in the form of statements and the few questions you do ask are directed towards me & Sangfroid who have been your primary scum picks since you decided to go solo. This gives me the impression that your conviction wrt my lynch is not genuinely your own.
I did question J early D1 and so far J is a solid town read for me, and J questioning people's motives in questioning me I don't find suspicious because J seems to be scumhunting and looking for their intent behind their FoSs/suspicions. I don't see the need to question J because he is clearly scumhunting and acting on his questions to get reads, and since our reads have been very similar thus far this game I can see J's points and expand on them if I agree and question them if I disagree.
Also we had a scum read on Ignatius/Sang's slot before J expressed suspicions of the slot as well, and our suspicion of Acrostic started with that last line of your post #97, and we had our eye on you from there and found your play more suspicious from there. And my convictions are my own, just because I can see J's reasons doesn't mean I let them overshadow my own scumhunting.
Perhaps you didn't know, but that post is with regards to my posts in
#332, and
#333. If you read that post alone then you would think it is a weak reason since it is a progression of these two previous posts getting unsatisfactory answers. I told Sangfroid to re-read and reassess because she missed the two posts I probably posted before which I'm assuming you missed as well. I didn't just "hop-on" to the popular wagon, I had a vague feeling that RR could be town and wanted him to "come at me" so he could start showing off his town vibes. I hope this clarifies some things.
#372: [1] RR's lack of explanation for switching from Seikend to me
[2] Lack of rebuttal to #332 and #333.
#384: [1] and [2]
#390: [1]
#508: [1]
Kk thank you, I did miss those posts but that does explain your reasoning better, sorry about that.
I've had tons of "serious" dialogue with J up to that point. Mocking her in that one post was not the point of change in his fos wrt me. I eventually did answer the question seriously in
#508 wrt the post you quoted
#496.
Kk thank you for directing me to that post, but there is still something off about your response to J. You seemed to get very frustrated over a simple question about your reads, and once again this is similar to the last line of your #97 where you go out of character and AtE.
Addressed the bolded section in my earlier post that it wasn't a convenient hop-on, I rebutted RR and asked him to respond back. I also found his move to Seikend with little explanation to be scummy. I was reluctant to lynch RR because I had a gut read that he would be town based on how no one came to his defense or tried to prevent his lynch. I don't see me capitalizing on this so called "town cred" that I'm supposed to cash-in on. Neither do I understand the point of me gambiting as scum off of "gut reads" to seem town. I decided to hammer as Zen told me in Newbie 13 that forcing an NL based on your own reads rather than pushing the lynch for town is incredibly selfish. So I hammered.
You are right that NL is selfish and a bad move, just trying to put it all together because your read on RR was a mixture of scummy/not scummy/PL/finish the wagon and all those different conflicting reads on RR and reasons for voting him make it hard to tell sincerity of a scum read on him or trying to dodge culpability for his ML. That's where reading you gets confusing, in that there is just so much about just this one topic, RR, and yet so much of it conflicts with each other.
@July: What are your thoughts on Hilt?
Hilt is leaning town for me. I think AM's case on him is overstated, while he isn't in the fray of things as much as Acrostic or J, he's gotten his reads out there and his push on RR over Seikend seemed legit yesterDay, as he talked about his read on Seikend in his #456. Hilt v. Panta is a little more difficult because Panta has been minimalistic with their reasons although they have been open with their scum reads, however as Nich points out in his catch-up post the content behind it is lacking. Panta requires a reread, null for now, but Nich's catch-up post deff leans town to me and I like that he addressed a lot of the major points from D1.
