See, that last quote taken in isolation (as it was in that post) reads as "Damn, let's see if I can get Cristi lynched instead".

I appreciate you had already stated reasons, but that post in itself looked super scummy.

Compared to watching yourself playing with yourself?

<couldn't resist>


Is this interesting in the context of the setup we have (to the extend of the info we have about it), or because of the fact that in the tv series, he was shot by Boomer (Cylon sleeper agent)? If the former, how and why is it interesting?

Depending on your answer, I may have a follow up question.


It was me that asked, and thought why is quite obvious. As I told JoeSapphire when he asked, as I'm unfamiliar with a number of you, the info will help me with my reads.


[emphasis added]

Not sure I follow why this is a town-tell; do you think scum wouldn't do it, and if so, why?


He did, in the very next post (#59).



At the point you made this post, Bookwyrm627 had made only post #6 (which you noticed yourself in your post #60). What made you say/think he seems sensible back then?

Similarly, what about ZFR's posts up to that point made you go from "no particular read" to "Seems confident? I've changed my mind. Cylon"?

Not sure if that was RVS (semi-)joking, but you did say those were your early impressions.



Damnation had already said, albeit in a somewhat (seemingly?) joking tone, he'd use it...


This looks like an unfinished sentence. What follows after that "and"?


To be fair, in his argument with JoeSapphire about post-format, he also mentioned a tactic he used as a baddie in the Secret Hitler game (post #139).



While you mention that you don't know what his usual posting style is, six posts later (#127) you voted him without waiting for his response/explanation or anyone else to shed light on the matter. Between this post and the one you placed your vote I saw nothing that could be perceived/interpreted in any way as a prod to you to place your first non-RVS vote. Why didn't you wait for his or anyone else's response, and voted him shortly after you made this post?

It's not the meta-usage itself, it's the way they started flailing as soon as pressure was applied. That the flailing was lots of meta-claiming just makes it a tiny bit worse, but most of it is gut feeling. It's pretty rare to have more than gut feeling to go on on day one, no?

I think you've misunderstood why I unvoted if you're looking for new reasoning for the revote. I unvoted as I didn't want to leave them at L-3 while I was at work and not able to read their responses. I got to work early and saw they'd made some big posts but didn't have time to do much more than skim.

When I had a chance to catch up, I actually felt that ZFR seemed slightly scummier than before, hence being comfortable revoting. I want to be clear that I would only not have revoted if something in those posts had swayed me. It did not.

Here's the thing - I'm more sarcastic than your average Dane. I'm so sarcastic I have friends who are unsure when to take me seriously and when to assume I'm joking.
Here's what I say to them (And now to you):
If you think I'm joking, I'm serious. If you think I'm serious, I'm joking. (And surprisingly as it may be, it describes me quite well)

No I get why you unvoted, but the argument is still flimsy. You unvoted, as you state clearly, you didn't wish to leave them at L-3, because you weren't entirely sure they'd be worthy of a lynch, for they might sway you.
That's the flimsy part: You think they can sway you, so you're, yourself, unsure of your conviction and sought out a reason to look elsewhere. You then claim you found none, and jumped back on the wagon. It seems like an attempt at slate cleaning. Especially considering L-3 is far from dangerous territory.

And voting with gut feeling on day 1 is what you have to go on for the first 100 to 150 posts. A lot of tells have already appeared. Sure, there's nothing concrete, but flimsy arguments and gut feeling are not enough at this point, I'd argue.

Not entirely sure to be honest, I'd guess at "speculation". I wrote that as notes while reading through the thread, I guess I must have got distracted and started writing about someone else. FWIW, now we're more thoroughly underway and have moved on from discussing the brig, I'm getting town-of-centre vibes from Damnation at the moment.

Yes, there's always a chance someone will make a compelling argument about their behaviour it just turned out that ZFR hadn't (in my eyes). The OMBHS vote for bler only made things worse.

You're right that I am unsure of my conviction, but I always am on the first day. I don't think I've ever been certain of a day one lynch in the entire time I've been playing. Maybe everyone else finds it easy and I just suck.

Either way, ZFR's flailing is my strongest scum-read.
Second is probably elebutterfly. I got the feeling she was trying to push a wagon while trying not to be seen to be pushing it, but having voiced that opinion she seems to have stopped. This is why some reads should be kept to one's self for a little while.
Bookwyrm has moved up to 3 for the reasons stated in my previous posts on this page.

Very well then, I should probably reread his newest posts, see if I can find his flailing as clearly as you.

She's been absent for a while now. There's a few situations arisen, and some questiosn raised at her, that I'd like to have her response to before I make a judgment. And you're very right, some reads should be kept to one's self.

The sort of mostly unprompted OMBHS in post 255 strikes me as someone panicking with a guilty conscience. I mean bler didn't even actually vote for them yet.

He was far from being in immediate danger of being lynched. If he or someone pointed out that's his usual side I could always unvote.

I'm not sure I can agree with you that his vote is "Oh my goat, he sucks". To me he does make an interesting observation - any lynch, even for reasons of randomness, provides information on D2. Why would bler claim ZFR's lynching would yield nothing?`

I'll say, however, that read his posts within the last 100 was not at all fruitless. There are a few points I'd like him to flesh out or explain:

How does this make any logical sense? Joe accused you of shutting down discussion, so you claim by meta you must be town?
You make short posts, so what? Isn't that explanation enough? What's the need for a meta-claim, in order to dictate you're town, even? There was no accusation of you being a toaster, only of scummy behaviour.
What exactly did you hope to accomplish here? Why would you, being town in another game, where you were also the less argumentative type, prove you being town in this, and why would your alignment in anyway to related to Joe's inquisition?

Alright, scumdar pinged. You're REALLY fishing for roles, aren't you?
You first state that certain town roles (Without mentioning which, or refering/linking to these "strategies" you talked about) should reveal themselves early on, and now you claim because you had a power in the previous game, which gave you preemptive information, puts you in a disposition here because you have less information?
How did having a power in the previous game let you know how many powers there were, and how does that even relate to you not knowing in this game?
Why should you know how many roles there are in the game, anyhow?

How so? I'm not asking you to cut out why you think X and Y is scum, I'm asking you to explain why X being scum excludes Y being scum. This belies background knowledge.

Except from the idea that scum wants to appear town, and town wants to hunt scum. IF you're town, and you're focusing on appearing town, you're doing it wrong.
If you're town and you appear scum, hunting scum is still the most viable course of action. If you're scum and you're appearing scum, you're not blending in very well.
Scum needs to hunt scum too, that's why playing scum is harder than playing town. And why vehement defenses are seen as scummy behaviour.
I reiterate: Scum wants to appear town. Town wants to hunt scum.

And confirmation from someone else was important... why?
I'm having you pegged as a person who speaks in short terms and is not as argumentative as others here - I don't need meta-confirmation for this: It's my read on you. Why do you need someone else to verify what is clear in the game already, lest you're desperate for a course of attack/method of defense?

Tell me about these "other Town players", and why you're one of them? Day 1 only has one town player - you, if you have a PM that states as such. You know nothing of the setup, and know nothing of anyone else - the setup could very well be 1 town and 12 Jesters. How do you know there are other town players?
Yes, it's a logical assumption, sure, but you still KNOW nothing of such, so why state it as if it is certain?
And why would you be afraid of getting lynched? You claim you're town, but are still afraid of the lynchhammer? If you're town and you get lynched, you still provide information. Yes, the lynch is best used on scum, but any town should be willing to sacrifice themselves if it leads to finding toasters to wreck.

Why vote at all, then? Why vote, but let meta be your reasoning for unvoting? Are you really that strongly against unformatted Rich Text?

What is OMBHS? "O my ??? he sucks"? a variation of OMGUS?

Then it reads more or less correctly. :P

A lot of things, taken in isolation, can look super scummy. This is why you don't just take them in isolation.

Taken in the context of the thread, that comment was a simple acknowledgement that several people (at least 4, just from memory) aren't interested in lynching Joe right now. I'm not so arrogant as to believe I can convince nearly half the player base, on Day 1, when I'm already outnumbered by the voices calling him town.

My vote was parked uselessly, so I moved it in hopes of starting a viable wagon. I've seen some interest in Cristi, but I haven't seen much interest in Ele.

Wait, what? Did you see the game I was referring to? It was an open setup 3 masons, 4 scum, 5 townie. Everyone knew how many powers were there.

I never said I "should" know how many roles are there in the game. Where did you get that idea?

I just said I never played a game where there were unknown power roles before and I wasn't sure what the best strategy is. Sheeesh.

I'm seeing a lot of misunderstanding here, whether deliberate or accidental. The vibes I get are worse and worse the more of this post I read, culminating with this:

Seriously, Damnation? Assuming there are other town players is the most basic, logical assumption a townie could possibly make this early in the game. Barring clues/information to the contrary, there is no reason to assume there aren't any town players (or other townies, if you are town), and I say that having participated in two separate "No townies at all" games.

Good grief, man. If you're going to smear someone, at least try to make it look plausible.