In post 2764, Hu Tao wrote:
Top town
Dannflor, SuperfluousNinja, outoforder
Townish
Vivax, Grackaroni
Null
DarthPunk, Gob, Naerys
Leaning
Oatsmaster
Scum
Luca Blight
I'd say these are my overall tiers. I could move gob and naerys down if they don't do anything. DP I'm unsure how to read. Idk if scum would just pretty much try to Elim me over every little thing, I think could just be tunneled but unsure.
This was the last reads list I saw and it still doesn’t have explanations
In post 3085, Luca Blight wrote:
The fact he gets so toxic is just another benefit of voting him out - we won't have to deal with that anymore and game instantly becomes more enjoyable.
This is super manipulative based on ninjas proclivities towards behaviour standards.
I don’t Think I have been toxic at all. Can you point out how this has been the case.
Because that is a serious thing to say to someone that is not about their alignment.
In post 3085, Luca Blight wrote:
The fact he gets so toxic is just another benefit of voting him out - we won't have to deal with that anymore and game instantly becomes more enjoyable.
This is super manipulative based on ninjas proclivities towards behaviour standards.
I don’t Think I have been toxic at all. Can you point out how this has been the case.
Because that is a serious thing to say to someone that is not about their alignment.
I will say that for me the game has become unenjoyable (although I feel better now I've accepted my inevitable lim) due to the atmosphere created in the thread from players such as you and Oats. I realise now it's probably part of your plan as scum to create such an environment, where people are afraid to even vote you for what your reaction might be. The fact you gang up as well, it's pretty shitty to play against.
I wouldn't say that anything you've particularly said has crossed the line, so I will take back my 'toxic' comment, as maybe that was a bit harsh.
You are giving as good as you are getting tbh.
I found that comment to not only be off the mark but also highly manipulative in the way it was used with ninja, enticing her to vote your way based on a narrative of toxicity where there is none. Not based on alignment. But for personal reasons.
Really distasteful overall regardless of your alignment.
In post 3085, Luca Blight wrote:
The fact he gets so toxic is just another benefit of voting him out - we won't have to deal with that anymore and game instantly becomes more enjoyable.
This is super manipulative based on ninjas proclivities towards behaviour standards.
I don’t Think I have been toxic at all. Can you point out how this has been the case.
Because that is a serious thing to say to someone that is not about their alignment.
I will say that for me the game has become unenjoyable (although I feel better now I've accepted my inevitable lim) due to the atmosphere created in the thread from players such as you and Oats. I realise now it's probably part of your plan as scum to create such an environment, where people are afraid to even vote you for what your reaction might be. The fact you gang up as well, it's pretty shitty to play against.
I wouldn't say that anything you've particularly said has crossed the line, so I will take back my 'toxic' comment, as maybe that was a bit harsh.
You are giving as good as you are getting tbh.
I found that comment to not only be off the mark but also highly manipulative in the way it was used with ninja, enticing her to vote your way based on a narrative of toxicity where there is none. Not based on alignment. But for personal reasons.
Really distasteful overall regardless of your alignment.
You and Oats have shouted me down for most of the game, including at times when I wasn't even talking to you (like when I was Iso'ing people). I think I'm entitled to bite back a little.
Absolutely you are, that is the game. But I have outlined where you crossed the line with that toxic comment and I think you agree.
I wish you hadn’t set ninja off but I think you did it on purpose so I will blame that on you
The other stuff is part of the game and having strong players with opposed views will always result in tension I don’t have harsh feelings towards you for also making the game suck for me. As long as we both acknowledged we are active participants (I even tried to disengage several times to give you space and get called mafia for it )
In post 3219, Oatsmaster wrote:
I’m saying darth is frustrated at Luca for out of game reasons, not that darth has out of game reasons which is leading to him behind frustrated………………………:.::
He isn't, though. He's frustrated with Luca for things he said in this game, that pertain directly to this game.
Show me a single non-game-related thing that he's frustrated with Luca about.
Okay that last post is literally the last time I’m talking about it, either you agree with me or you don’t. Either way this stops.
In post 2764, Hu Tao wrote:
Top town
Dannflor, SuperfluousNinja, outoforder
Townish
Vivax, Grackaroni
Null
DarthPunk, Gob, Naerys
Leaning
Oatsmaster
Scum
Luca Blight
I'd say these are my overall tiers. I could move gob and naerys down if they don't do anything. DP I'm unsure how to read. Idk if scum would just pretty much try to Elim me over every little thing, I think could just be tunneled but unsure.
This was the last reads list I saw and it still doesn’t have explanations
I posted my thoughts on a few slots but I guess it's not all in that post. But that postbdoes explain my thoughts on dp which you asked for
In post 3219, Oatsmaster wrote:
I’m saying darth is frustrated at Luca for out of game reasons, not that darth has out of game reasons which is leading to him behind frustrated………………………:.::
He isn't, though. He's frustrated with Luca for things he said in this game, that pertain directly to this game.
Show me a single non-game-related thing that he's frustrated with Luca about.
Okay that last post is literally the last time I’m talking about it, either you agree with me or you don’t. Either way this stops.
In post 2264, DarthPunk wrote:
Ugh, its impossible to engage with you when you literally twist and lie about everything.
Here is the progression and I know you are going to have some lies about why this is not really the truth, but for everyone else THIS IS REALLY THE TRUTH.
1.) you hard agree with ninja's post. and say 'reflects my thoughts on the game almost entirely' with the exception implied being the oats read
In post 773, Luca Blight wrote:
499 is brilliant - it reflects my thoughts on the game almost entirely, and offers many insights that I had not yet considered. I've seen scum act far worse than oats this game (perhaps I'm desensitised to rudeness at this point) so I don't necessarily agree that he's town just for being rude, but I generally feel as though his play has been proactive and his pushes haven't lacked conviction. I need to catch up more but will review this slot again.
The read progression on Darth Punk is very natural. I really like the analysis of Dunn and the bit about trying to trap scum into being more active - that puts to rest one of the slight doubts I had after Dann's case highlighted such posts, and I read the passion behind these comments as being sincere. The analysis of Gob and Roden is spot on as well. I was pretty null on Gob before reading this post, but I'm definitely leaning scum on him now following some of the observations made here. I also resonate with the mixed reaction to Vivax - so far I have disagreed or seen flaws in much of what he has said, and yet something about his style of play makes me naturally want to townread him. I will be sure to review Vivax later as well.
Both Dann and Ninja are clear town reads at this point.
2.)Outoforder and I Discuss concerns with the basic failures of logically consistency in that exact post and raise the issue that it 'reflects your thoughts on the game almost entirely' because you have failed to identify and consider the issues in Ninja's post
In post 786, outoforder wrote:
- I can understand your take on Ninja / Roden, however do you think just making a big post makes her town? I mean like... it shouldnt, and i don't see any more reasoning there other than she made a big post.
Well I liked that ninja said she was trying to do something with the activity stuff in that post. I do have a soft spot for big effort posts though.
In post 788, outoforder wrote:
Also do you have any read on Luca Blight and/or Vivax?
As Ninja is your town read, do you think she can have that kind of confidence in her read on Luca, if you can't have a read on Luca? Why?
I liked the last post Luca made about ninja's post, other than that I don't have much thought. Vivax has been making posts that seem weird to me but I wrote it off as playstyle differences.
And sure I don't have to agree with everything someone says to think they are town. I often don't.
Of course you dont, i wouldnt hold that against you.
But like, we've expressed some concerns in Ninja's post (with DP). Like... if Ninja posts like that (makes big posts with a lot of effort) as town, i wouldnt think she would act differently as mafia. For the posters who make wall of texts, it's often small nuances that give them out -- as you can look reasonable by posting 90% truth about other players as long as your vote ends up on someone who isnt mafia.
What we were discussing was:
- Ninja placed Dann on town pile for reasons she probably shouldnt (the real reasons came after she did that)
- Ninja placed Luca in "conf town" position but the reasoning in her post didn't include what she actually said makes Luca "conf town"
- Ninja called me out for conf bias, when that "conf bias" actually meant that i shouldnt know i am town
I find these to be those kind of small nuances that
could make her mafia
. I am not sure of it, but it's definitely something to look into imo.
In a similar sense, in case Ninja is actually town, Luca's "100% agree to that post" doesn't look good to me, because there is DEFINITELY stuff you should not agree with. It's just very easy thing to say as mafia in case you know it's actually a townie who wrote that post.
3.) Dunn agrees with the good point because it was.
In post 793, outoforder wrote:
What we were discussing was:
- Ninja placed Dann on town pile for reasons she probably shouldnt (the real reasons came after she did that)
- Ninja placed Luca in "conf town" position but the reasoning in her post didn't include what she actually said makes Luca "conf town"
- Ninja called me out for conf bias, when that "conf bias" actually meant that i shouldnt know i am town
I didn't have a problem with Ninja's read on Dann. They talk about how they missed the post and then talked about their reads after.
Looking back at 499 they do seem to point to a Luca post they liked and explain their read.
And I don't see where they talk about confirmation bias regarding you.
In post 793, outoforder wrote:
In a similar sense, in case Ninja is actually town, Luca's "100% agree to that post" doesn't look good to me, because there is DEFINITELY stuff you should not agree with. It's just very easy thing to say as mafia in case you know it's actually a townie who wrote that post.
This is a good point.
4.) Much later Luca uses out of context snips of quotes and completely fabricates the historical narrative when ostensibly he is supposed to be 'sorting' implying an open mind.
I'm looking through Dunn's posts now (I'm not finished yet), and I really don't feel great about how he began the game, talking mainly about theory and hardly engaging with anything else. I also didn't like this:
In post 793, outoforder wrote:
In a similar sense, in case Ninja is actually town, Luca's "100% agree to that post" doesn't look good to me, because there is DEFINITELY stuff you should not agree with. It's just very easy thing to say as mafia in case you know it's actually a townie who wrote that post.
This is a good point.
Because it wasn't a good point, in fact outoforder misread my post as I explicitly said that i disagreed with ninja on things such as the reasoning behind her oats read, and I would expect Dunn, as careful as he has been in this game, to pick up on that if he was genuinely trying to read me in this situation. Especially when Dunn mentioned/implied he only comments on posts he finds worthy. He also does nothing with this - it leads nowhere, and is never mentioned or referenced again, so he couldn't have believed it was that good a point.
It was a good point though.
It can't be a good point when it's provably wrong.
5. Luca is mafia
Here is DP's case on you Luca.
In this case DP says:
- you hard agree with ninja's post. and say
'reflects my thoughts on the game almost entirely'
with the exception implied being the oats read
- multiple people discuss the points Ninja made in her post, and point out there are points why the post shouldn't be agreed with, namely me, DP, Dunnstral at least
- we discuss on how it could make you mafia (before DP's case), that you
agree with the post almost entirely
, why that is possibly a scummy thing to do, because any townie should not do that
- you counter that point with
[...]"outoforder misread my post as I explicitly said that i disagreed with ninja on things such as the reasoning behind her oats read"
Now this is not the point we were discussing. We were discussing entirely other parts of that post. I mean like
'reflects my thoughts on the game almost entirely'
cannot really be considered ONLY as
"i disagreed with ninja on things such as the reasoning behind her oats read"
. It's just simply an "over-townread" on Ninja regarding the situation without better explanation on this. It is true that you are not explicitly "lying", but you have to understand if you say
'reflects my thoughts on the game
almost entirely
'
, you just cannot brush off the other discrepancies of the post just because you had one different read. Which i can fairly see DP thinks you are doing.
You did the similar thing a few times before also.
You literally said:
In post 270, Luca Blight wrote:
I don't resonate with Roden's level of conviction at all here, nor do I think he really believes it himself.
Although it wouldn't surprise me if Oats/Roden is S/S - this whole interaction feels contrived to me.
A bit after that you even enforce the statement with this:
In post 272, Luca Blight wrote:
It's also the second time a seemingly passive player has burst into life and suddenly gone ultra-aggressive, which as I said earlier I read as more likely to come from scum who are having a hard time blending it otherwise and feel the need to create waves.
Doing so against a partner would be a safer route of achieving this.
Outoforder at least comes across as Townie to some extent, which I'm not seeing from Roden yet.
And after this you are questioning Oats on his read or non-read on gob.
What am i supposed to think??? You give every single piece of clue that you're scumreading both Roden and Oats, just to later on say that you didn't do so and you have never said so.
Again, yeah you are not explicitly lying, but whatever you posted in the thread between there that sure seems like that's the thought you had in your head.
Same thing again with your read on Roden as full. You call him out on being defensive, aggressive and potentially power wolfing (i dont care who said that first, you basically did call him out on that). When i question you on "how does being defensive or aggressive make anyone mafia?", you say you never said those things, it was Roden who brought it up. It's very very twisted how you build your posts just to backtrack on them -- again, by not lying, but you give the impression you DEFINITELY think something, and when it's called out you have a way to back off of it. Like here:
In post 457, outoforder wrote:
I am not saying inconsistencies are purely a mafia trait. Regarding Luca's town reads, i don't understand why he posts 5 town reads while saying he doesn't want to post town reads too early,
and also while thinking both Roden and Oats are mafia. Is that his best use of time, rather than idk.. questioning his scumreads or something?
And also when he does that, why does he want Oats to discuss gob??? Like the best situation interaction-wise a townie can get to, is to make mafia tell why another mafia is mafia.
Same here with Dann's comment on Dunstrall. It's very easy to see what Dann sees. There is a lot of content in the game so far. Why does Dunstrall think discussing lurkers is the most interesting point of discussion at the time?
You seem to massively contradict yourself from one sentence to another, unless I just don't understand what you're saying here.
I also don't have a strong SR on Oats and never have - just his interaction with Roden seemed off to me. I do, however, read Roden as scum independently.
You seem to be making out like I'm throwing all my chips on Oats and Roden being partners, which isn't the case at all. You're overblowing everything I've said.
In post 270, Luca Blight wrote:
I don't resonate with Roden's level of conviction at all here, nor do I think he really believes it himself.
Although it wouldn't surprise me if Oats/Roden is S/S - this whole interaction feels contrived to me.
You literally said this, so i don't know what else to think other than you seem to be thinking they are or could be mafia with each other.
If you don't believe they are mafia together at this point, why say so?
It was my initial reaction to the interaction. I even used the expression 'it wouldn't surprise me', so why are you trying to frame this as me being convinced that they are scum partners?
This is why I don't think your recent analysis is in good faith - I could see where you were coming from with your opening push, but now it feels like you're nitpicking anything to justify maintaining your read on me.
Please don't do this if youre town. I am trying to understand why you are coming to the conclusions and why you feel the need to post what you post.
I already said i can see your PoV from town perspective regarding Oats/Roden. I also think
it's possible
you are coming from town PoV regarding Dann.
However, you cannot just take one part of a case that's wrong and
because of that only
, try to brush the whole thing away. That's something i find scummy tbh. Take one part of the case where you know you are right and discredit everything else because of it. That's not how it works. I'm here to figure out yours and everyone's alignment, and i am pressing things that i feel like are alignment indicative. If something was not, it doesn't mean the person is not mafia, especially when there are other things that concern me on that person.
I haven't brushed anything away - I literally just said i understood where you were going from initially, which is why I made an effort to present my reads in a more transparent way.
In post 475, outoforder wrote:
Now i would still like you to explain how:
- If you don't "normally" solve by giving townreads at the time, then what made you think to post them just because i said you're not solving (after all that's not even what i meant)?
If you don't think that's good town play for you, why did you decide to do it
, if you're not sure of yourself to give those reads at any level of confidence at that time? Just because i am voting for you, should not be a reason. If someone asked me to do things i don't find helpful doing as town, i wouldn't do it. Why would i?
I've answered that already, and once again just above.
In post 475, outoforder wrote:
- If the above is something you did as town, why do you think Roden is mafia partly because he is being "defensive"? Because i would say the above there is way more "scummy defensive" than what Roden did towards Oats. Like if you believe being defensive is a scummy trait, wouldn't you consider yourself defensive towards my accusation (when there should be no reason for you to be defensive in your mind -- unless
you actually think you are not solving the game
, which you shouldn't as town)
The problem is that you're not reading properly.
I never specifically said Roden was scummy for being defensive, although I do think entering the thread purely to defend yourself is quite scummy, which is what happened initially.
What I said was that most of the things Roden accused oat of, including defensiveness, had also been displayed by Roden himself.
Nowhere have I ever said that being defensive automatically equals scum, because that would be ridiculous. I'm not sure why this even needs to be explained, as it should be obvious?
Like in that post you literally contradicted yourself in one sentence.
Basically, at best you are not doing very good job at being clear in what you think and how it reflects into the thread.
When you are called out for your literal words you have written in this game, you say they meant something else.
That's a big problem to me.
And when he does this to then use as a justification to misyeet a townie when he should be sorting with an open mind -that- becomes pure mafia.
"If I wanted your opinion, I'd have told you what it was."
In post 2939, SuperfluousNinja wrote:
In the game Werewolf (also known as Mafia), there isn't a single "best" way to detect a werewolf because the game heavily relies on deduction, psychology, and social dynamics. However, there are some strategies that players commonly use to identify werewolves:
Observation: Pay close attention to players' behavior during discussions and voting phases. Look for inconsistencies, nervousness, or overly defensive reactions, which might indicate that a player is a werewolf.
Questioning: Ask players targeted questions to gauge their reactions and responses. For example, you might ask them to explain their actions during previous rounds or to clarify their voting decisions.
Voting Patterns: Analyze voting patterns to identify suspicious players. If someone consistently votes against innocent villagers or seems to be influencing others to vote a certain way, they may be a werewolf.
Role Interaction: Consider how different roles interact with each other. For example, the Seer might have valuable information about certain players' roles, while the werewolves might try to eliminate the Seer early in the game to protect their identity.
Process of Elimination: Narrow down the list of potential werewolves by systematically eliminating innocent players. Focus on players who are contributing less to discussions or seem to be avoiding scrutiny.
Psychological Tactics: Use psychological tactics such as bluffing, misdirection, or provocation to elicit revealing reactions from other players. However, be mindful that these tactics can backfire if used excessively or without subtlety.
Team Dynamics: Pay attention to how players interact with each other and form alliances. Werewolves may subtly signal to each other or protect their teammates during discussions and voting.
Information Gathering: Gather as much information as possible throughout the game, including players' claims, voting records, and any special abilities or events that occur. This information can help you make informed decisions about who might be a werewolf.
Ultimately, there is no foolproof method for detecting werewolves in the game, as it heavily relies on deception and manipulation. Success often depends on your ability to read other players, analyze information, and adapt your strategy as the game progresses.
Serious question: Is this a ChatGPT post?
It looks like it.
I'm totally down to policy yeet people who could use such tools to write their posts.
Please mark any posts made with generative AI as such, remember that generative AI is not a way to replace your role in playing the game, please refer to the site rules section on the topic
In post 3203, SuperfluousNinja wrote:
Naerys is even more underwhelming. Notice how fast she vanished when I asked her for more of a case on Gob than the 1 sentence of feels she gave me? She wants a free pass just because she suspects someone I also think is guilty, as if bussing isn't a thing. Making no case whatsoever on the person you're bussing is pretty par for the course.
If u cant respect that i dont sit at this game 24 hours per day then meh, i dont feel like answering to you questions
Please mark any posts made with generative AI as such, remember that generative AI is not a way to replace your role in playing the game, please refer to the site rules section on the topic
In post 3203, SuperfluousNinja wrote:
Naerys is even more underwhelming. Notice how fast she vanished when I asked her for more of a case on Gob than the 1 sentence of feels she gave me? She wants a free pass just because she suspects someone I also think is guilty, as if bussing isn't a thing. Making no case whatsoever on the person you're bussing is pretty par for the course.
If u cant respect that i dont sit at this game 24 hours per day then meh, i dont feel like answering to you questions
The point is that there's a LOT of space between "sitting at this game 24 hours a day" and what you are doing, though.
I don't like how Luca and Ninja kept trying to resort to bring up toxicity or the implication that our site players all play together.
That is why I will still try to yeet Luca.
It's a way of defending himself that takes away responsibility from what he posted and completely derails the talk from the post content to what are going to be discussions that have nothing to do with mafia.
Once that doesn't work, the two of them might be capable of kicking off discussions on why the earth is flat.
Anyway. Case in point, I had to talk about basically useless stuff because of that right there.
Look at Luca's D1 and his list with Roden as the only scum in it that I already found bad earlier and tell me he wasn't lacking in suspicion on too many players as opposed to strategically positioning his reads according to sentiment.
In post 3203, SuperfluousNinja wrote:
Naerys is even more underwhelming. Notice how fast she vanished when I asked her for more of a case on Gob than the 1 sentence of feels she gave me? She wants a free pass just because she suspects someone I also think is guilty, as if bussing isn't a thing. Making no case whatsoever on the person you're bussing is pretty par for the course.
If u cant respect that i dont sit at this game 24 hours per day then meh, i dont feel like answering to you questions
The point is that there's a LOT of space between "sitting at this game 24 hours a day" and what you are doing, though.
)
)
