You definitely did. Your play has felt like you are trying to satisfy, rather than truly identify scum.
In your engagement with me, you were focused on what would be enough for me, rather than trying to see if my thoughts were genuine or not. It feels like you already know the alignment of players and are making moves to position yourself favorably, rather than you actually putting the thought into solving.
AKA, rBree2. Casual tryhard. I've Quite the RANGE. #pluralgang
"Interestingly though, town winrate in Blitzes has been really high."
In post 1634, Political Clout wrote:what would satisfy you what kind of post should I be making where does enough end for me when is it enough will it ever be enough?
That's the issue I have with you. You are focused on "what would satisfy". It feels like what you have done has been efforts to satisfy, rather than efforts to solve.
I think out of any player in this game. the person you are saying this is about is the person that it is least true for
How so?
i think they chose to notice strikingly creative things about the game and also were really quick to get in the weeds of like expressing reads and saying detailed stuff that could get pushback
In post 1530, tris wrote:i need her to give an explanation so i can go oh that makes sense, of course you would scum read me
I felt you've been putting in the effort to look good, but put in only the bare minimum effort to avoid being suspected. You don't seem to have genuine effort to solve.
oh that makes sense, of course you would scum read me
i guess thats all beleivable stuff coming from a good scum player replacing into a slot with a weak initial presence but yea definitely dont agree with at least the "playing to satisfy" assessment
You definitely did. Your play has felt like you are trying to satisfy, rather than truly identify scum.
In your engagement with me, you were focused on what would be enough for me, rather than trying to see if my thoughts were genuine or not. It feels like you already know the alignment of players and are making moves to position yourself favorably, rather than you actually putting the thought into solving.
In post 1653, hellbooks wrote:i think they chose to notice strikingly creative things about the game and also were really quick to get in the weeds of like expressing reads and saying detailed stuff that could get pushback
The latter is what I would quantify as the bare minimum. Every player replacing in should be expressing reads which give feedback regardless of their alignment; PC doing so is no impressive feat.
Can you point me to the former, the "strikingly creative things"? I saw none when I read PoliticalClout's entrance.
AKA, rBree2. Casual tryhard. I've Quite the RANGE. #pluralgang
"Interestingly though, town winrate in Blitzes has been really high."
In post 1662, hellbooks wrote:1334 and the python stuff and like trying to dissect the fire / dann relationship
1334 read to me as an attempt to pocket you. You were in no danger, yet he went out of his way to create a reason for townreading you. It looked highly performative to me. That was one of the posts which pinged me on Political Clout in the first place.
Can you give me where the python stuff and the fire/dann breakdown is?
AKA, rBree2. Casual tryhard. I've Quite the RANGE. #pluralgang
"Interestingly though, town winrate in Blitzes has been really high."
In post 1662, hellbooks wrote:1334 and the python stuff and like trying to dissect the fire / dann relationship
1334 read to me as an attempt to pocket you. You were in no danger, yet he went out of his way to create a reason for townreading you. It looked highly performative to me. That was one of the posts which pinged me on Political Clout in the first place.
Can you give me where the python stuff and the fire/dann breakdown is?
it feels like Black doesn't believe our serious vote is serious,
idk why
What makes you think that
If you were taking it serious we'd expect you to either go "grr this is a shitpush" or "what makes you say that" (woah deja vu) instead of the lighthearted banter
You're right, I didn't take it serious.
I think it should be pretty obvious why I didn't but for some reason you threw these in here
Thought it was pretty clearly a joke given that our "serious vote" was dropped before you ever posted in a time that you'd normally be V/LA
In post 41, Black wrote:
I read it as you playing dumb to cast shade and rile me up. I can believe that it was a joke though
naked vote on hellbooks. this is page 6 iirc. I'm willing to let it go though.
In post 200, usesPython wrote:
Didn't read that game at all, did the nervousness in open 894 have anything to do with both of their teammates getting voted out d1/2 or was it happening even in the earlygame?
I feel like this is just here to go into the other game? to answer though no it dont think it was happening in the early game. they had like 2 walls iirc.
In post 324, usesPython wrote:
Kinda expected us to have more scumreads in a 3(!) mafia game, makes me feels like most of the team is some combo of deepwolf/lurker
I think this is also iioa like what are your actual thought who would be the deepwolf/lurker that you're thinking it could be?
In post 332, usesPython wrote:
like maybe Jupiter but not really confident there and that's about it
why is jupiter in your lim list here? at this point in the game I'm actually really curious. I was townreading them early in the game.
In post 479, usesPython wrote:
Like there's definitely the mental of "oh no bussing loses two scum" but a good team should be able to recognise that bussing here is perfectly playable
pointless post imo
In post 613, usesPython wrote:
There's an emotional dissonance here, this setup punishes not having scumreads more than Coalition so your lightheartedness about not having scumreads when you were apparently stressing about not having scumreads after the coalition failed is offputting
fa
I think this is interesting because they start pushing on tris here and it's actually an analysis of tris and not just information. Also the english turn of phrases makes it so confusing for me to understand.
In post 616, usesPython wrote:
btw we'd put tris at E-1 here but I kinda dont want to end the day yet so just consider our vote there in spirit
hesitation about voting for tris because in hammer range? not sure how I feel about that. I'm certain people would intent before hammering.
In post 779, usesPython wrote:
fire is like 2nd or 3rd on our to kill list but we're fine with going there
I don't remember them ever talking about fire except for them being a deepwolf
In post 806, usesPython wrote:
The "!" in the first post makes the stressed/not stressed claims believable, there's a noticeable change in writing styles that'd be weird to fake in advance
now they switch to defending tris based on an exclamation mark. fair enough I guess.
In post 116, hellbooks wrote:
jupiter what do you make of fires vote on you (asking in order to make thinfs inequitable once again)
i will say right off the bat that this time it was probably due to my undying charm and devilishly good looks as opposed to actually being scumm
(Actual answer: no clue)
true
i mostly wanted to see what your response would be
VOTE: dannflor
In post 176, fireisredsir wrote:
im pretty sure ive townread dann for that reason before which may or may not be part of why i felt like his lower presence here felt like it could be intentional
In post 177, fireisredsir wrote:
like i think if he's scum then his activity level would be specifically in order to avoid looking like he is exerting too much influence on the game/trying to look towny
In post 930, Dannflor wrote:
it is something that i am on high alert for especially after Dragon's frenemies game that just ended
ranger was someone i thought was town but was very likely to be pushed by scum
and then scum!STD spent all game hard pushing ranger
i think you and jupiter fit a similar profile of having lots of personality based things that are easy to scum read and, like, look *good* to scum read, so if you're town I'd expect you to attract scum
i am currently town reading you both but im not as confident as i was with ranger in that game though. but i like it as a working hypothesis
i still think python is towny
even though i do agree that theyre playing survivalistically and saying a lot of things about setup and wagon theory and game state that i either dont agree with or understand
it feels like both you and fire are taking it as a given that thats a bad thing and worthy of primary focus / debunking (maybe it is, esp. the latter) which i dont agree with although i do think that is also seeming to be your styles
but its like idk it kind of seemed like python playing survivalistically is like me running up against that thing again where PC was like "well yea. so what if i am" and me being like well yea i guess youre allowed to
although now that i think about it. i do think it is somewhat concerning that theyre kind of not really commiting to finding strong reads and just kind of just gestured at this amorphous disclaimed lim pool and then saying that they havent had the capacity to revisit it because theyve been too busy battling all the haters. which i guess yea fair. but esp given that they obviously take stock in the idea of "anti-spew" when it comes to scum wagons. and like even when they are saying who they want to lim its kind of like stated as "well who is limmable who is not me" which seems like further muddying the information equity of reads
i could vote tris as compromise as they said
that first paragraph is exactly what i was thinking
1352 and 1509
honestly this is not my biggest priority right now... like its not like PC is my lock town or anything i just disagreed with the exact point you made about them to the extent that i thought it worthmentoning
In post 1659, usesPython wrote:
We would quite literally rather die here over ranger in necessary since that at least lets ranger snipe instead of us
You're so confident in your Ranger read that you would rather die instead of her?
yeah
That's ridiculous
How so? We have 0 confidence in sniping scum
If you are town then you are 100% sure of your alignment. You can only be as high as 99% sure about Ranger's alignment. There's no world where you should volunteer to die instead of her
