Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[flabort]

Thank you for the explanation of your reads, Flabort! I confess that it's a little hard to sift through that many links if you don't fully summarise them. You're now voting for Deathsword over Pisskop. Would you have been doing the same way if nobody else had been voting for Deathsword? Do you believe targeting low activity in the first day is liable to stick?

I would have changed my vote to any of my four top suspects if it looked like it would help get them lynched. Since my vote was tying up the lynch between Deathsword and Pisskop at the time, it would not have helped get either of them lynched. If nobody was voting for Deathsword, it also would not have meant anything if I voted him because it wouldn't help decide the lynch in any meaningful way.

As far as low activity day 1, yes, I do believe that after a certain number of hours, low activity does count even during the first day. I don't believe other players regard it with as much suspicion as I do, but low activity day 1 can be indicative that their activity day 2 will remain low. And day 3. Etc.

[Cheeetar]

Low activity votes are rubbish if you have an actual lynch target, and you ought to know that Flabort.

[flabort]

Yes, but while 3/4 of my suspects are low-activity, I don't suspect everyone with low activity and two of those are also bandwagoners and tunnelers and the other one is cracking more wise than a bad jester. The fourth suspect is high-activity-high-scummitude.

[Scripten]

Low activity votes are rubbish if you have an actual lynch target, and you ought to know that Flabort.

I gotta say, though...

He thinks active lurking is the biggest scumtell. He's since done pretty much nothing except confront Pisskop a couple times, weakly, and vote him. He's barely, if at all, interacted with any other player, but he has been by the thread a few times.

[flabort]

Low activity votes are rubbish if you have an actual lynch target, and you ought to know that Flabort.

I gotta say, though...

He thinks active lurking is the biggest scumtell. He's since done pretty much nothing except confront Pisskop a couple times, weakly, and vote him. He's barely, if at all, interacted with any other player, but he has been by the thread a few times.

Nope, no. The question was his "Second" biggest scumtell.

[Scripten]

Low activity votes are rubbish if you have an actual lynch target, and you ought to know that Flabort.

I gotta say, though...

He thinks active lurking is the biggest scumtell. He's since done pretty much nothing except confront Pisskop a couple times, weakly, and vote him. He's barely, if at all, interacted with any other player, but he has been by the thread a few times.

Nope, no. The question was his "Second" biggest scumtell.

Ah, my mistake.

Still, the point is really elementary, since he's still pretty damn high on the scum scale and whether he finds a few other things more scummy or not is irrelevant.

[flabort]

And he hasn't even posted since the first vote on him.

...?

Well, it's over a 48 hour absence.  Unless LurkerTracker is acting up in yet another new way.

[mastahcheese]

Fricken' hell.

I keep trying to re-read this thing and I still get no further every time.

You know what? Since I hate when people agree on things, Scripten.

I get this weird-ass feeling when I read your earlier posts, and when I read your more current ones.

A few people have read you as town-like, including myself, and it almost feels like you've grown bolder in your accusations since then, and less wary.
Like you're using that as some kind of shield, knowing that you can pull back on those in order to defend yourself with, in order to solidify your position, should someone get suspicious.
The thing is, I can't exactly quote individual posts to prove this point, because it's entirely a gut feeling. But it honestly feels like you've become more bold since people started supporting you.
I also don't like the frequency in which you switch targets, and even say

Unvote Toonyman

This post seems town enough to warrant looking elsewhere for the time being.

Are you looking for actual scum-tells, or are you looking for incriminating details?

[Cheeetar]

By my count, Scripten has switched targets twice, Mastahcheese. Is this really that unusual?

[mastahcheese]

By my count, Scripten has switched targets twice, Mastahcheese. Is this really that unusual?

No, but I don't pay attention to counts, I pay attention to the details for them happening at all.
I don't like it. It's like saying "This isn't going to turn up anything incriminating, better find a better target."

It's a gut feeling. I can't put into words.

[UXLZ]

I don't like it. It's like saying "This isn't going to turn up anything incriminating, better find a better target."

Isn't that what scumhunting is?
Or have I misunderstood something?

[Cheeetar]

If you can't put it into words, there's little point using it to justify your vote for him. Try asking him a question.

Scripten: What about Deathsword's low activity justifies voting for him over Toonyman, who you saw as not scumhunting?

[mastahcheese]

I don't like it. It's like saying "This isn't going to turn up anything incriminating, better find a better target."

Isn't that what scumhunting is?
Or have I misunderstood something?

There's a difference between "This looks scummy" and "I could make this look scummy if I tried"

...Why is this such a difficult concept for you guys?

I need sleep.

Scripten: How important are reads to you? Do you think it'd provide any help to post them now?

[Scripten]

Mastahcheese:

I get this weird-ass feeling when I read your earlier posts, and when I read your more current ones.

A few people have read you as town-like, including myself, and it almost feels like you've grown bolder in your accusations since then, and less wary.
Like you're using that as some kind of shield, knowing that you can pull back on those in order to defend yourself with, in order to solidify your position, should someone get suspicious.
The thing is, I can't exactly quote individual posts to prove this point, because it's entirely a gut feeling. But it honestly feels like you've become more bold since people started supporting you.

There's not anything wrong with gut reads on people. I've won entire games before on hunches. That being said, I would actually have to, with the appropriate amount of personal bias, disagree with your statement here. If anything, I've drawn away from the game and become less intense recently, which I am consciously trying to rectify. (Being an IC in another game takes a lot of work.) Beyond that, I really can't defend myself from a gut read like that.

Are you looking for actual scum-tells, or are you looking for incriminating details?

I get what you're saying. You're postulating that I'm trying to fabricate my scumreads. Sure, that's a good way to scumhunt, but I am not doing it. I'm doing what I can to scumhunt and to avoid becoming hung up on trivia/semantics, because I find mislynches happen a lot when town gets distracted by those things.

There's a difference between "This looks scummy" and "I could make this look scummy if I tried"

...Why is this such a difficult concept for you guys?

Like I said above, a good term for this is fabricating scumreads. I disagree that I'm doing it, but I like that you are looking for that sort of thing.

Scripten: How important are reads to you? Do you think it'd provide any help to post them now?

Honestly? Not that important save for a player who is about to die or from someone who does a lot of analysis, like NQT. I post them because site meta here puts a lot of stock in them, but I don't see them as being all that useful. Maybe as a way to condense people's current states of minds, but usually the reasoning behind null and town reads can be safely ignored. (Withholding town reads is actually potentially pro-town, as it reduces the chance that scum will aim for the player who's practically conftown because they aren't really doing the same sort of scum- and town-hunting real townies are.)

Cheetar:

Scripten: What about Deathsword's low activity justifies voting for him over Toonyman, who you saw as not scumhunting?

Toonyman's response before I unvoted him felt very town to me. It convinced me to look elsewhere for the time being. If you notice, I actually had a span where I wasn't voting for anyone. I considered going for Tiruin, but I wanted her to reply to this post before I made my vote. Since then, I'd reread sections of the game, and I'd isolated Deathsword's posts, which convinced me to vote for him. (UXLZ's points were good, and they reminded me that he had not been inactive but had actually been active lurking.)

[Jim Groovester]

Scripten, is your only complaint against Deathsword about his activity? I did a quick reread of the thread. I can't recall you posting your reasons besides his activity.

I disagree that I'm doing it, but I like that you are looking for that sort of thing.

Complimenting the playstyle of the person voting you unnerves me, but I don't know enough about how you play to say whether that signifies anything about your alignment.

Spoiler: "Completely unrelated" (click to show/hide)

By the way, Jim, is your avatar M. Bison or something else?

Actually, I think your answer is right here.

A lost opportunity. I wish I could have thought of it first.

PFP

...4 guys are voting Deathsword...for being not here?
Out of all people, that kinda vote seems valid? I mean, I could get it at a later time but...
...?

Says the dudette not voting anybody.

I would have changed my vote to any of my four top suspects if it looked like it would help get them lynched. Since my vote was tying up the lynch between Deathsword and Pisskop at the time, it would not have helped get either of them lynched. If nobody was voting for Deathsword, it also would not have meant anything if I voted him because it wouldn't help decide the lynch in any meaningful way.

If you could have your way who would you lynch? I.E., who is your tip-top suspect?