gogtrial34987: I realized there might also partly be a language parsing thing at work here. "that certainty" was Bookwyrm's certainty that mchack's claim was a fakeclaim (
not my certainty about Bookwyrm's townieness). I valued it due to townreading Bookwyrm, but it would still hold value even if I wasn't, as scum-Bookwyrm wouldn't be coming out with such a strongly worded post as
#702 unless he actually saw things in the claim that didn't add up for him, and that he could explain if pushed on.
No, there was no misunderstanding on whose certainty you were talking about, and that's exactly what I find puzzling in your read there. Let's look at the two cases:
- Assume Bookwyrm627's town. He cannot be
that certain that it was a false-claim based on the reasons he gave. Which were things that had been discussed to no end already. Further down in post #707 he says he's not read most of the last page or so, yet is still certain that mchack's false-claiming, because "It just doesn't gel for me" (post #709).
Remember that in post #355 he white-washed supplementscene's inability to answer flubucket's question about self-protection blaming GOG's mobile chat, the same FUBAR GOG mobile chat that supplementscene used to probably make the honest mistake of copying his PM (post #349). Yet, mchack's circumstances at the time had no weight for Bookwyrm627, even though he's been bringing up his own circumstances in the physical world as reason for always being (very) late each Day, and never caught up. Because, apparently, if mchack was indeed the Doctor, town!Bookwyrm627 expected him to have memorised his role PM as soon as he got it, and hence would be able, at any moment and under any circumstances, in the blink of an eye, to do a word by word comparison of his PM and supplementscene's claim that was scattered over multiple posts. I will assume that you never linked all these in your reads of him. If you do it now, do things still sound like coming from a town-mindset?
- Assume Bookwyrm627's mafia. I seriously don't follow what value does such a strong worded post on the basis of "he saw things that didn't add up for him" because he'd be able to "explain if pushed" hold. Do you consider Bookwyrm627 a good mafia player? If so, do you think he'd push for a mislynch on reasons he'd not be able to explain? Just look at the short essay he wrote to convince Vitek that that "instead of making Town do it" from post #1048 (which I consider as a Freudian slip) is coming from a town mindset, when brushing it off with a snort didn't work.
But let's put that aside for a moment, and let's look at his reasons. Do you think that they'd be hard to explain even by a semi-competent/semi-experienced player? If so, why?
You could perhaps argue that SirPrimalform didn't believe mchack either (he said so somewhere), but I'm chalking that up to his overall surface reading of the thread due to his laziness.
gogtrial34987: [...] My townread for Bookwyrm was basically for his overall contribution, so hard to point to specific references (I have a few below anyway, but that's reconstructed). He started off lurky, but once he got going, he just moved solidly into my town column.
Somewhere in the 600s, I did a "who's left and what do I think of them" readslist for myself, and for Bookwyrm I wrote this: "strong town read,
not on actions but on reads/contributions; a bit like Vitek, but more consistent over longer time." (The "600s" reference is approximate; I don't have any pointers to 600-range posts before that readslist; still trying to find what balance of note-taking works best for me, and think I undershot a bit during this game.) [...]
[emphasis added]
Which reads would that be, besides his certainty that mchack was false-claiming?
- The too easy too obvious Vitek+supplementscene scum-pair because of TMI on D1?
- His scum-read on Lifthrasil on D1, which didn't even take into account his butting heads with PoppyAppletree?
- SirPrimalform being pocketed by PoppyAppletree even though he doesn't know either one well enough?
- The mchack+HSL+supplementscene mafia team on D3, in spite all three of us not only being on SirPrimalformm but also the only ones at EoD1?
As for contributions, could you do an ISO on him, and point a few things he contributed/pointed out that hadn't already been pointed out/mentioned/discussed before he did?
gogtrial34987: [...] [...] Specific references for posts which I remember as contributing to town-reading Bookwyrm:
#162 and
#216 These are the main posts that took him off the menu for me on D1; when I was questioned about it, I realized it was pretty thin, but that's where it all started. I remember following the references and considering it a town mindset to point them out like that. (I however also remember wondering if I'd conflated the second post with mchack's readslist from right above it.)
#377 I'd expect mafia to be more wait-and-see, uncertain how town would be interpreting things; ref trent (and you?)
#552 Both the references early on, and particularly his explanation of what he found suspect in my #408. (I think this post also was the main one which offset his D2 day-ending behaviour to keep him town-lean.) [...]
- Post #162: What about it? Do you see anything in it that isn't stating the obvious, or/and hadn't already been mentioned/commented on?
- Post #216: Same as above.
- Post #377: By your own argument, how does mafia better conceal the fact that they know it's their scum-buddy, and blend in, at the point that it's almost certain that said scum-buddy won't be lynched D1 (less than a minute before deadline), but will most likely be again up for lynch D2? Now, trentonlf took the "wait and see" approach, and flipped mafia, but he made sure to be seen doing it for reasons perfectly inline with town!trentonlf. If Bookwyrm627 had done the same, would he have stood out to you or not?
- Post #552: You are (and were) aware that this is after supplementscene flipped, yes? Besides, referencing things that had already been mentioned and commenting/questioning things that had already been questioned, not to mention that he even replied to Lifthrasil's post #499 who was lying in pieces in the crater that was once his tent, you never once wondered if all this referencing you value(d) was done because he had noticed your reaction in post #273? I can only assume that his explanation of what he found suspect in your post #408 outweighed everything, in spite having to drag it out of him with your "you're giving yourself a lot of leeway for finding something scummy in that post at a later point".
But let me ask you this: after your post #984, Bookwyrm627 has been consistently responding to posts, multi-quotes and everything. Today in particular, he's been here since the start of the Day, being very proactive, responding to practically each and every post, again with multi-quotes and everything, even returning to posts before ones he had already replied to/commented on (he's been dissecting my every post from EoD4 onwards). No more references with short comments on them, and the occasional quote-reply. What do you make of that? He pointed out a change in my D2 from asking questions to making a statement as notable, and the lack of comments on it may suggest that you (general) thought it was. Either way, is his change notable? And if it is, why do you think the change happened, and what does it mean?
gogtrial34987: [...] Trent's flip shows that that's the right thing to do, and that my "surface" reads are worth much less than my then going with the odds based on analysis. [...]
You said in post #1003 that you wanted to check the references in my reads. Did you do that? Since you've decided to go with the odds based on analysis (of what exactly?), and don't put (much?) stock in reads, what are you looking for in others' reads and references, and based on what are you going to interpret/judge them?
I may have a follow up question here after you reply.
And one more question; Bookwyrm627 says at the very bottom in post #1044 that "I'm good" in response to my own comment on his play of N4/D5. Does that ring sincere to you, i.e. do you think he actually means it? If so, why? If not, why not? There may also be a follow up question here.
gogtrial34987: [...] But you're not wrong. [...]
SirPrimalform makes a rather flippant comment on the mafia having 4 members, right after musing on the Tragic Lovers scenario.
You follow with comments on both.
Then comes Bookwyrm627 questioning the both of you, but the questions directed at you are pointed.
You then reply to him in post #1046 with a reasonable response. Yet he returns to give you a lesson on mafia theory, and to waggle his finger that such speculation is a distraction at best, and an attempt at fearmongering and discord at worst. You tell him he's not wrong, and concede to have made a bad play.
What do you think was the motive and goal of all this?