|
A lot of old fucks in here. I'll play.
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2019 01:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 05:53 |
|
|
kaschei posted:I got two! I also got two, I trust you kaschei, don't let me down
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2019 12:45
|
|
|
##vote Sal I think the last game I played w/ him he just bumbled around the entire game and I felt bad and I couldn't vote a bumbling but well-meaning town or so I thought but it turned out he was scum, so I am well versed on your shtick now, buddy
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2019 12:48
|
|
|
SalTheBard posted:
Well this is a big oversight on my part
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2019 21:38
|
|
despite what you may think I'm not in this game according to votefinder and Fisk. This will be my only post unless I'm made a replacement
|
DizzyCow posted:Ixt's overreaction to Ernie's overreaction is more scummy than Ernie's overreaction. Agreed. ##vote Ixtlilton Something seems off about his posts from the joke stage to his 180 response to Ernie/posts on Lumpen. Something that can be best explained as just a gut observation where I can kinda compare it to when I'm mafia and I'm trying to develop some certain rapport with players early on and joke semi-seriously with a few people so I could get in their good graces early. Re-read his posts. To me, they just seem a little too clean and carefully crafted/over-reactionary for some reason.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2019 21:46
|
|
|
##unvote I still had that weird vibe on Ixt before the Ernie stuff happened, but an early gut vibe isn't enough for a vote. At least that explains the 180 on Ernie.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2019 22:36
|
|
|
##vote AA AA, besides a joke vote, is just poking in and out of the thread with little observational fluff comments but has yet to make a read on anybody, or even comment on anybody besides his initial joke post.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2019 23:09
|
|
|
Part of me feeling okay on kaschei is actually the double PM thing because it happened to me too, although I'm not sure what the correlation would be other than it happening to two town PMs back to back or something. But he's also not reading as scummy to me.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2019 03:39
|
|
|
kaschei posted:When did this happen? Was just going to comment on this. I looked through your post history and didn't see you address AA.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2019 03:40
|
|
|
Ardulac posted:But he didn't send out VT PMs. That was the joke. poo poo, I may or may not have read Fisk's post on that after seeing this. I mean, uh, totally didn't receive any sort of PMs, guys. Anyway, AA has done nothing despite posting and nobody is really going after him. Feeling okay where my vote is at.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2019 03:57
|
|
|
Ernie. posted:i really hope the game ends with scum night-killing the last town power role 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2019 04:12
|
|
|
Even if you say it's not, it still reads like uninspiring lengthy OMGUS vote wrapped in with some other random comments on other players that had way more things to sink your teeth into but instead just voted me for voting.. Sal? How is that an aggressive scum move exactly? Also, there was semi-serious conversation happening while you kept poking in with comments, otherwise I wouldn't make much note of you joking around while others are joking too.Jonathan Fisk posted:You made it. This was the last thing I saw to Sal from the actual mod himself, and assumed he was in the game. That's all there is to it. It would be like me reading into your flerp vote and voting you because of it. A weak vote to me is the equivalent of an OMGUS vote. Hell, the PM slip thing could've been a better thing to try to accuse me of being "aggressive scum" but this makes zero sense to me.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2019 06:04
|
|
|
I don't like a lot of the meta stuff being thrown around either. It has its place, and certainly can be used for player specific interactions they've had with people in this thread, but have already seen more than a few posts giving meta reasoning as to why certain players are playing specific/odd ways early on. It's hard to tell if it's a well meaning "head's up" or just meant to confuse and keep people off the scent of actual scum playing weird D1.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2019 06:08
|
|
|
George Kansas posted:Not feeling great about DBD, who made a vote on Ixt that I disagreed with but then unceremoniously unvoted here because ??? Because of the previously mentioned "meta" cases being explained? Lumpen talked about why Ixt has posted the way he has D1 and why he reacted towards Ernie the way he did. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt but still have a weird feeling toward it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2019 06:58
|
|
|
Anomalous Amalgam posted:The meta Sal vote, I am not above marking that off as an oversight, but it is that you had a meta vote for him, and you cautioning against it now. I mean, not only was my "meta vote" an oversight, it was also a joke vote with a meta explanation because this is a totally new game and I wouldn't seriously just vote the guy because he fooled me in a previous game as my first post in the game. Hence me saying, if the situation was flipped, it's like me making a case on your flerp joke vote as the reasoning to why you're scummy if you called me out. You would also think it's a weak case. Anomalous Amalgam posted:However, the meta Sal vote alone is not why I think you're suspicious. Why didn't you write this in your initial vote on me then? All you did was bring up Sal. Anomalous Amalgam posted:It's the fact that you had any explanation at all to lead into a serious vote on someone. Followed up with your quick shift on to Ixt that was defused in the span of an hour and a half to cherry pick my peripheral skim poo poo posting for your next bit of conviction when as you've pointed out, there are way more things to sink our teeth into. Wait, I'm confused. Should my first ~serious~ vote not have an explanation? Am I supposed to be 100% committed to a gut read of a player playing too "clean" and "awkwardly jokey" in Ixt, in my opinion? Also the unvote wasn't quick and for no reason, Lumpen literally explained why he may have came off like that, I accepted it (to an extent), and saw AA just making these weird quips every other page and that pinged me harder. My last post about the meta thing does reference Ixt and Ardu because I've seen meta explanations on why they're playing like they are, I just don't want that to become a trend, aka meta reads for every single person that is playing differently, because people could overthink things. Also, GK, I refuse to believe you would look at/vote me in this instance over someone in AA that essentially OMGUS'd a call out vote, and then voted me because of a "meta joke vote" of a player not in the game as an "aggressive scum move". He also said he was posting how he was posting because "the game just started and jokephase was put down unceremoniously while I was wrapping up being thoroughly defeated by scum in Yami's pokemon 2 mafia", yet the last 3 posts he had after his "This game is filled with vets and old faces, strange." post were also quips/shitposts which occurred while things were quite obviously happening and way past the jokevote stage. I don't buy it. In the past, my gut has served me right when I'm frustrated town because people for some reason love to spar with me D1 when I'm active and making reads., and press me for poo poo that has pretty logical explanations compared to things that require a bit more, uh, connecting pieces to make sense. If I didn't call you out, I'm not sure you would've even involved yourself thoroughly by now, AA. That's what bothers me. I would be utterly surprised if out of a D1 that has had more than decent content, which is rare, you would pick out a joke Sal vote as the number one thing that pinged you.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2019 07:27
|
|
|
George Kansas posted:I’m about to sleep so I promise I’ll read that big post tomorrow DBD Thanks!!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2019 07:38
|
|
|
Hal Incandenza posted:I haven't played with DBD in a while, but I feel like he is being off from what I recall of him this game. He seems a little all over the place and definitely a little too defensive. Bad feelings. Another Bad Post. What's all over the place about me?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2019 21:45
|
|
|
Toalpaz posted:Could you point to confusing meta reads and interactions? A lot of the meta stuff just flies over my head and it makes it hard to read if people are serious or not. It was more of a general statement. I just saw a lot of meta reads (specifically on Ard and Ixt but also other little small comments thrown around), and maybe it's just me not playing in a while, but really seemed like in this game more than games in the past, a lot of small "they played this way in past games" comments have leaked in and it's just something I guess I have to be cognizant of but not let totally skew my thoughts on players.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2019 21:48
|
|
|
I've re-read Ardulac a few times and I still don't see anything that throws me off enough to think he's scummy or deserving of 5 votes right now. Have no problem with the Ernie statement he made early on, and Lumpen's post on him that challenged it is taking into account a lot of meta stuff, which again, I wasn't apart of that game and this is an entirely new game.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2019 21:54
|
|
|
And Hal, I feel like you've been in enough games with me in the past (although it's been a while) to know that I am always overly defensive as town and don't mind getting into back and forth spats early because even if it's frustrating, I can usually root out a few opportunistic scum. It doesn't work all the time, but enough for me to welcome it. But I am pretty drat sure about AA. I feel like people are willingly ignoring him until I'm holding a piece of paper up in front of their faces and telling them to look at him. Makes me think he has a few scum buddies that just don't want to look his way. If he had just been honest about why he was avoiding actual content/discussion on players a decent amount of time past the jokevote stage, I don't think my vote would've even stayed for as long as it has. Instead, he voted me for a joke vote, then said "that wasn't all you're scummy for" a few posts later, which you would think he would expound upon in the vote where he did vote me. Yet there was nothing there.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2019 22:03
|
|
|
Ernie. posted:if aa flips scum, dbd is probably scum with them actually This creates a slippery slope for me though because if he were to be voted out and flip town, that's not a good thing, and if he flipped scum and I was right, you're creating a scenario where you think I'm scum with him. Also scum know I'm not vanilla so it adds an extra layer of them either wanting me around tomorrow just for confusion or wanting me dead because I am not vanilla. Ernie. posted:aa's 'case' came after dbd's 'slip' and my post about it, and if dbd is scum his scumbos would want to distance from him I most definitely slipped as far as not being a VT, but if you're assuming I scum slipped and said "AA, make the weakest case on me available and involve yourself with me as a scumbro", well, there seems very little payoff in a situation like that from a bussing scenario that you think people would be so quick to buy. I'm town and just think his play AND vote was weak as poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2019 00:01
|
|
|
Anomalous Amalgam posted:But the hypocritical part is that he chastises me about not sinking my teeth into the "meatier" arguments, that I weighed in on and decided not to be the fire worth looking at. As he to has done the same I have not done the same. You keep bringing up my Ixt suspicions as if I had proclaimed that I had anything more than a "gut" and "bad feeling" from his posts, whereas you have consistently posted in a way that makes no sense to me, seems scummy, and doesn't serve town well, in my opinion. Hence my vote and constant suspicion towards you. I've only weighed in on a few players that have seemed "off" to me, and have voted accordingly. Your post provided about 6 other hedging opinions on things that were happening, and you voted me for a "well constructed joke vote". That's why I commented about you bringing up other arguments and posters that you seemingly had more to say about, but then ended up voting me because of "not OMGUS" but a Sal vote that I'm just not even going to comment on anymore because I can end that argument with "it's a joke vote" and you can either choose to accept that or not. Anomalous Amalgam posted:In this instance, I give a normal reason for relative presence and he chooses without much reason, me from a pool of players skirting around the conversation enough to stay caught up. And I gave an example of the 3 posts you made while joke vote was not a thing, or at least mixed because there was actual discussion/serious votes going on. And I said if you hadn't posted numerous thoughts during that time, or if we were still full on joke vote phase, I could excuse it. But that wasn't what happened. There's just no way to know whether or not you would have laid down opinions in the way that you did if I didn't call you out. Or if your vote would even be on me.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2019 00:15
|
|
|
imgay posted:I kind of like what merks doing, hes swinging the vote around getting a small following them swinging it again. its brilliant strategy i think it can make for some great evidence with some flips Until this post?? Ardulac posted:That is the silver lining to my seemingly inevitable lynch. Don't think it's inevitable. Haven't really felt anything wrong with your posts, but didn't like this one. People have been agreeing with you and sniffing away from you a bit, at least from the last page (even if the vote count isn't representative of it, at the moment).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2019 01:08
|
|
|
Ardulac is a bad vote.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2019 01:15
|
|
|
I've noticed ~weirdness~ regarding AA votes/comments: GK when he was around after me and AA's votes towards each other, didn't speak much about AA and I's back and forth, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he was just tired and needed to catch up with the thread fully once he woke up since he said he would comment when he did. He did comment on a post of mine (which I had explained already) and he posted about AA hedging his opinions, which is why I was a bit confused that he couldn't actualize more opinions then and there, but it's okay. Hal said nothing (or at least nothing substantial) about AA but said that I was defensive and wasn't explaining myself. I don't think that's true at all if you actually read both of us earnestly. Lumpen said AA looks scummy but is using big words and and trying and is therefore isn't going to vote him. Now, I'm not saying if AA is scum, all three of these guys would be scum buddies, but there is a mixture of enough people willing to vote AA at the drop of a hat, people flat out not really talking about him at all, and then a few that have begrudgingly accepted that he's been scummy. I feel like there's a noticeable dichotomy between scum willing to just vote the guy and throw him to the sharks but also some push back and reluctance to talk about him, but are forced to because I won't drop it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2019 01:31
|
|
|
I guess what I'm saying is, there's a lot of mixed results when discussing AA and that gives me pause.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2019 01:32
|
|
|
merk posted:Huh? Isn’t that exactly what you want? Scum trying to discredit the case or save their buddy by fronting another case while town sticks to their guns or, at worst, gets influenced by scum? Definitely. That's what I'm saying. I meant "cause for concern", not pause. I was going to write "pause for concern" which isn't actually a thing. But yes, it gives me concern regarding AA in general which is why I have been tunneling on him and makes me feel fine about the vote compared to anybody else.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2019 01:51
|
|
|
Why was there two kills?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2019 21:57
|
|
|
kaschei posted:You really need to read the OP and the start of game posts I did, obviously I missed the most important one, but yeah, I assumed the vig was a dayvig.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2019 22:14
|
|
|
Okay, then. Captain Foo was a lurker vig shot (presumably) to help us, and ernie. was the scum kill. I feel like ernie was a bad killl though because I was very conflicted about ernie re: his posts about setting chain lynches on scum flips and his unvote of AA at the end. I think there were better kill opportunities. Anyway... ##vote Hal Incandenza If we're throwing out a lot of meta hot takes this game, allow me to present mine. Hal is playing exactly like the last mafia game I was in. I pushed two of his scumbuddies, he really refused to bus any of them, would lightly comment about how they look bad/look scummy, but go no further and never vote for them. In this game he begrudgingly accepted that AA was scum by the end of it, thought I was scummy, which fine, whatever, vote me for it if you think so, but he never did. Much like I questioned AA's content posting if I didn't call him out, would Hal have said those things about AA if a lot of other people didn't come around on him? It's obvious that some scum bailed early on AA, but you can't have everybody just leaving him out to dry, especially if he's the godfather. Hal Incandenza posted:Yes I have to concur with the posters who have concluded this is AA's scum game. Hal Incandenza posted:I appreciate everything you are saying AA I just think it's kind of a lot of BS Never once did he throw down on me or him. In the last game I was in where I was town and he was scum, upon re-read, he didn't place down a vote for the first 14 (actual game) days (!!) Maybe once he did, actually. I think once. In the same time frame, I had about 6 or 7 and frankly, I think he's a weaker player when he's scum because he doesn't like to draw that much attention to himself or turning his back on his scumbros. In Grieving of Gaqqu, he was active during D1 but never placed down a vote. Not Voting (1): Hal Incandenza The D1 lynch? A scum-aligned busdriver, his scumbuddy. In Convalescence, active again, same result: Not Voting (3): Ernie., Hal Incandenza, imgay Out of these three, was the only one to never place down a vote despite being around. The D1 lynch? A scum-aligned godfather. Too many similarities.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2019 22:43
|
|
|
imgay could be someone who plays the "gonna try to defend you by not mentioning you until it's weird that I'm not, but also lightly bus you by voting you when there's too much suspicion on you" sort of scumbuddy role. He unvoted AA near the end because of forum issues, which were legit and I could see his intentions there, but I don't think the lynch was a foregone conclusion at that point. It could also be an opportunistic excuse to get their hands dirty (by voting/putting suspicion on AA) but wipe them off on the first dishcloth they see.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2019 22:49
|
|
|
Hal Incandenza posted:That DBD case was so good I had to double check that I didn't get a scum PM 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2019 00:27
|
|
|
George Kansas posted:I don't see the Hal case. Hal is posting like he does in every other game. Not particularly towny or scummy imo. If the meta stuff isn't applicable as a mirror, that's fine, but it's still a pattern. Someone uncomfortable with voting or bussing scumbuddies hard will usually default to that unless they're mega-cognizant of the fact. But even if you ignore all of that, do you think his post history is something that is serving town well? And, I mean, my case on AA was basically him trying to poke and prod and not involve himself (and subsequently, he made a bad OMGUS post), so are you saying that Hal who is not fully-committing to cases or opinions and still not voting anybody yet in this game or getting involved with any intent, is indicative of his town play? I always remembered his town play to be stronger and more active. Also his last reaction still pings me too! It hurts cause I like Hal and I'm glad he "liked" my case, but even in that last game he was like "DBD nooooo it's not me  " and I always feel a little guilt tripped. I do agree that looking at the 1 or 2 scum that may have defended AA is a better choice than who distanced themselves, so someone like Lumpen, Hal, imgay, maybe a few others are better to look at. Much like the push on Ardulac D1, I'm not seeing DizzyCow's case. Lumpen is always a wildcard to me, but I have to re-read both of them.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2019 11:42
|
|
|
I think remaining scum would push back on jumping on another lynching of their own super quick, so besides reading Dizzy and not feeling ~overly sus~ of them, Dizzy also had 5 votes pretty drat quickly on them during the day when it first started. It felt weird. I am comfortable on Hal. I did not lead you guys wrong on AA and I have a GOOD FEELING about HAL'S BADNESS!!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2019 07:23
|
|
|
Ixtlilton posted:He had 5 votes p drat quick b cuz everyone saw he's scum. So do you think all 5 that voted him are town? Or would scum be inclined to jump literally at the start of a day on Dizzy after seeing AA lynched?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2019 09:58
|
|
|
kaschei posted:Personally Hal's condemnation of AA was effective at calling for AA to be lynched. It could be a bus but it seemed like he wasn't withholding his vote to prevent AA from being lynched, which is what people seem to think is suspicious. No. I'm pretty sure the ton of discussion prior to that and AA's scummy play was effective at that. Hal's post was not some inspiring war cry and then suddenly people started to vote him. This is a weak defense point. Also, Hal has still not voted anybody.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2019 22:08
|
|
|
And yes, my soft claim does prevent that situation from happening, but I would appreciate the doctor looking my way tonight so I can continue helping the town. That's all I will say regarding anything.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2019 22:13
|
|
|
And I realize that was a huge gently caress up on my point early on, but I'm okay sort of being the lightning rod knowing I might have a limited time to scum hunt. While I would be a good scum kill, there's probably not going to be a good trade off for them on the night that I die.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2019 22:15
|
|
|
merk posted:He is scum negatively talking about a lynch on town with made up reasoning or defending a scum buddy. Wouldn't a potential flip of Hal make more sense to apply these reasonings though? Rather than vice versa? I agree about not liking his responses lately. kaschei posted:Second guessing vote patterns before flips is very fun and completely pointless This is puzzling and misses the point completely. Dizzy is (was?) considered by quite a bit of the game to be scummy. The scum just had their godfather lynched. If we're assuming a player is scum, aka playing mafia, it makes sense to put yourselves in the shoes of a team that just lost their godfather and can't afford to have a 2nd scum lynched in as many days. Therefore, I think the likelihood of Dizzy gaining that many votes THAT quickly, unless they were all town votes, makes him more likely to be town because scum would be reluctant to jump on someone that early unless everybody is out for themselves now. It's very WIFOMY and isn't a hard read on him, but I am trying to play the odds here that all 5 of those votes are not all town. Also I just think there are scummier people out there than Dizzy. I am completely neutral on them. I've still yet to see Hal actively play a part in being town and his D1 was scummy/reminiscent of Hal scum for me. And there is push back on his lynching which, again, was a big reason why I felt perfectly fine with my AA vote. There seemed to be a mix of some people defending him and others trying to make us look in other directions. I don't think the prospect of lynching Dizzy has had that same feeling.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2019 22:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 05:53 |
|
|
I understand. Still, I'm not moving from Hal. He's done nothing to make himself look that much better today besides stay on the defense. I don't know what the benefit of keeping him around is, other than a silent minority wanting him around.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2019 22:33
|
|