yeah I understand that but it doesn't really address the point I was trying to make. It feels like your play from day 2 onward has been primarily supporting me in generating mislynches and pushing me back in that direction when I start to reconsider. Can you address that?
In post 1150, Micc wrote:yeah I understand that but it doesn't really address the point I was trying to make. It feels like your play from day 2 onward has been primarily supporting me in generating mislynches and pushing me back in that direction when I start to reconsider. Can you address that?
I will fully admit to working with a strong townread and I'll also admit that our views this game seem to have been more or less in sync.
Can you show an example where I pushed you in some direction? I don't recall this happening.
In post 1152, Micc wrote:I was thinking back to Day 2 when I was reconsidering on NSG and you confirmed pretty strongly that that's where you were at as well.
On 635 you posted your NSG case. On 636 I voted. How were you reconsidering in 635?
In post 714, Micc wrote:UNVOTE:
For now. I haven't hit the aha moment that makes me think this is right yet and I'm getting cold feet. I don't want to do anything without talking it through with cabd/Zito/Hopkirk but it's not going to happen today because I'm kinda busy.
I want to all be in agreement here, not just me pushing a lynch and everybody following which is kinda what it felt like. You seem to agree about northsidegal, Hopkirk didn't even seem to have her in his bottom 3 and Cabd is understandably keeping his cards close to his chest. The combination of UC's post on BTD and this northsidegal wagon not feeling right make want to slow down and reconsider. I just don't have time to read back until late tonight.
In post 720, BTD6_maker wrote:My point about bad Town was that they are much more confident in their reads than the actual probability. For example, I think it's likely that if you take every time a Townie claims to be 80% certain of a read, a lot less than 80% of those reads will be on actual scum.
Unless I am certain of a preferred pronoun, I tend to just use the singular they.
Is it bad to be confident in your reads and thus actually driving the game forward or is it bad to just sit on your ass and do absolutely nothing all game. Also my pronoun is tagged on every single of the thousands of posts I've made on this website.
@Micc
I came to the same conclusions you did when I read overnight. I'm 100% on board here. I'm also willing to vote Cheeky today.
@Hopkirk
did you read the multiple posts where northsidegal was defending our flipped scum? You really think those come from town?
@UC
there's only one scum left my dude there's no possibility of collusion here.
While we're here can you talk about why you're 100% on board with NSG here while still being open to Cheeky and BTD (post 751)?
If your'e confident that Micc is town can you put forward some reasoning behind what makes Hopkirk scum here please? Because "PoE Hopkirk is mafia since I think Micc is town" doesn't do a lot for me. I completely agree with the Micc read ftr, it's just a case of me trying to solve between Hopkirk/Yourself.
Micc: I want to all be in agreement here.
Zito: I'm 100% on board
How is this me trying to convince you of something?
In post 1154, Micc wrote:While we're here can you talk about why you're 100% on board with NSG here while still being open to Cheeky and BTD (post 751)?
With the Chip scum flip I had a lynch pool of NSG >>>>>>> Cheeky>> BTD. NSG was by far my preferred lynch that day but I was willing to compromise. That very post pretty much explicitly shows this. I'm really confused why something so basic is controversial.
@Regfan: I'm not interested in generalities. Ask specifics.
Having significant computer issues, so posts will be short until solved. Already lost a longer version of this post once.
In post 1132, Micc wrote:NSG had moved more towards town for you during day 1 then? Where was that?
Spoiler: Pulling out quotes of me trying to drive a chip wagon
In post 15, Micc wrote:Why aren't yall helping to wagon the guy who planted his RVS vote on a player who is replacing out and then disappeared from the thread?
This seems to imply you got a town read on Hopkirk from post 38. Can you explain that one please?
yea i thought that his questions in 38 meshed a lot with what i was thinking when i read those posts which indicates a towny thought process. it wasn't a super strong read at the time but its been strengthened by his recent posts as well
ftr my other tr at the time was chip but when i entered the game the wagon on him was pretty much the only thing happening and i wanted to see what happened with it
has your opinion on chip butty changed as his wagon fell apart? the lack of traction for the wagon meant there was less pressure than I would have liked. I'm left feeling like I don't have a read on him because of it.
Me stating my disappointment that a stronger Chip RVS wagon didn't happen.
In post 143, northsidegal wrote:sorry, i wasn't clear again. me voting you initially wasn't entirely serious. my vote as it stands now is where i want it to be. let's look at the sum total of your contributions this game: you threw a little fit over someone's rvs vote and then you threw a little fit again over my vote on you. i hope i'm not making the mistake of letting how much i dislike you cloud my judgment, but i don't think i am.
Well, I think ive refuted the points you made regarding the seriously serious vote and I think this post unfairly mis represents my contributions to the game thus far. Do me a favor and seriously think about my play and ask yourself what is likely to come from town/scum and why. If you decide that youre scum reading me solely because you don't like what I'm doing or how I'm doing it then back off. If you really think I'm scum bring the evidence to the table. Right now I'm trying to decide if I caught scum you pushing a bad case or if youre town that is confirmation biasing herself because she doesn't like my approach to the game.
In post 143, northsidegal wrote:it's hard to display in quotes how natural you sound in one game as opposed to the other
and thus why I think this argument doesn't hold water. Its pretty clear that you decided my posts look "awkward" and went into my previous games in order to find evidence that proves to yourself that its alignment indicative. As Cabd can attest to, it takes A Lot of time to make a legitimate meta argument. And if you're going out to find the evidence after you have your hypothesis then your doing it wrong.
In post 142, Micc wrote:has your opinion on chip butty changed as his wagon fell apart? the lack of traction for the wagon meant there was less pressure than I would have liked. I'm left feeling like I don't have a read on him because of it.
eh he's still a tr. i thought his response to his wagon in 56 was fairly towny. it was a lot like how i reacted to being wagoned early in my first newbie game although given his join date i'm a little less inclined to tr it than i would if he was a newbie.
i wish he would contribute more but i'm most interested in hearing btd's thoughts rn
could you expand on post 56 please? that's the post I picked out as pretty useless to make as town and questioned him further on. Is there a reason a newer player wouldn't have this type of reaction as scum? for me it doesn't seem like the kind of thing that needs to be said if he's town and as scum he would likely be using it to discourage the players on his wagon from staying on it any longer.
Trying to convince one of my town reads that his town read on chip had flawed reasoning.
In post 226, northsidegal wrote:i've been a little but busy but i've also been thinking a lot about this game. the more thought i give to the issue the more i think it's possible i'm reading through the thread with the goal of trying to make you scum in my mind to fit some narrative rather than objectively looking at things. for the sake of both the town and myself i think it's counterproductive for me to keep going with it, so for now i think what i'm going to do is just try to focus on other people.
Cool beans. I can work that. UNVOTE: northsidegal
The lack of ability to build momentum on any wagons so far this game makes me want to look for scum in the lower activity players. At the same time I'm conflicted because I generally view parking a vote on a player for lack of participation as a waste of time.
Talking more about how a chip wagon never happened and what I thought it meant about the game.
In post 307, Micc wrote:No, I'm not interested in wagoning anyone who's not here. That's never productive. I kinda want to wagon you because it still bothers me that it never got traction the first time.
Let's talk about Hopkirk. He's your lowest read of the players with more than two posts. I have him moving above you because I liked a lot of things he did in his catch up. What's your read based on?
Me saying that it bothers me that Chip never got wagoned and that I'd be up for it.
In post 312, Micc wrote:VOTE: Chip butty
Well none of that moved me away from wanting to see this wagon happen. I don't like his trajectory on me. He moved me from towniest among the active slots to being null simply by not posting for a day. I thought the creater of the setup thing was a joke at first but he reemphisised it without anyone else bringing it up and I can't see why he's letting that have an impact on his read.
My understanding of his point against hopkirk is that hopkirks reads are superficial and or lack deep analysis. Not only do I disagree with that I think I could accuse Chip of that same thing. Seems like more of his reads are activity based than anything else which I see as very superficial.
Me voting Chip in hopes that other players will join.
In post 380, Micc wrote:oh man. it took cheeky two sentences to explain what I've been trying to say for three days.
Can we get an actual wagon on Chip yet? That and some catchup posting from LUV/BTD would do wonders for this game right now.
Me specifically calling out to people for a Chip wagon.
In post 527, Papa Zito wrote:@Micc: Are you done with BTD or do you still have things to hash out with that slot?
I'm not really done or satisfied with what came out of pushing BTD, but if this is you asking whether I still want the Chip butty wagon I've been calling for all game then consider me on board.
VOTE: Chip butty
Me not hesitating to drop my BTD push in order to wagon Chip at the first sign of interest from other players.
1.) I think it's pretty obvious that over D1 my North scumread was overtaken by my Cheeky read, then BTD (after it developed), and then Chip. UC then became suspicious day 2. Reconsidered strength of my thoughts on North by skimming, but she'd already been overtaken several times at that point, and looking back was partially motivated by North being at the bottom of four potential scum.
2.) That's not what I meant. Calling for a wagon isn't equal to pushing hard. A few paragraphs on recent actions isn't a case, a couple of lines of questions to SS isn't really trying to persuade your townreads (you didn't really try and persuade me), and (though this isn't your fault and leans to null) a push is limited in what it tells us when nobody joins it.
If you're not town I'll eat a steak. Absolutely nothing I can find points you to being mafia in this game.
So I'd rather you fire away cuz I don't wanna get mislynched.
Sidenote: I just discovered if you do alt+u it does the underline BBCode for you whoa
This confuses me. If you can't find anything for Micc then you must have read him in depth, or can't make that claim.
So either you haven't read me in depth, or have read me in depth but didn't post and conclusions or comments about the read.
In post 1159, Hopkirk wrote:2.) That's not what I meant. Calling for a wagon isn't equal to pushing hard. A few paragraphs on recent actions isn't a case, a couple of lines of questions to SS isn't really trying to persuade your townreads (you didn't really try and persuade me), and (though this isn't your fault and leans to null) a push is limited in what it tells us when nobody joins it.
I don't have anything for you then. I'm not selfish enough to think my Day 1 reads are so much better than anyone else's that I start demanding people vote with me. All I can do is continuously express my reads and try to keep an open enough mind to get reads on other players without tunneling or spamming up the thread with a 20 page 1v1 argument.
In post 1090, Micc wrote:Re 1066: I don't get the attempt to paint me as not 100% trying to get Chip lynched for the middle parts of day 1. I'll admit i wasn't ready for a hammer until about 6 posts before it happened, but to act like i wasn't tyring to get him wagoned is silly. Hard to scum read hopkirk for this since hes coming at it from the angle that that im scum, but geez ill pull out quotes of me asking for a wagon if I have to.
In post 1129, Hopkirk wrote:@Micc/1090: Could you pull those up, since they’re the strongest reason for my suspicions.
In post 1162, Hopkirk wrote:That's a main part of what I'm saying. You weren't on him hard enough for it to be a hard bus.
Are you saying a hard bus makes me town or scum here? How about a softer bus?
I feel like I've lost track of what the point you're trying to make is right now.
Think some of Miccs recent posts reduces the odds he's mafia even more and I've not really been a huge fan of PZ's re-entrance into the thread. Feel like if I'm town in his position knowing there's a decent chance I get ML'ed and fmpov I know that Hopkirk is mafia (Which is what would be the case with his strong Micc!Town read) then I'm probably doing something to try and point this out? His response to me of wanting to ask him specifics rather than 'something vague' feels very weird there if I'm trying to put myself in his shoes if he's town.
Ah, that makes more sense than you still being at 50/30/20
/
40/40/20.
It's totally going to end up being Micc and make us look like fools but yeah, I'm p happy for Micc/Hopkirk to throw their votes down on PZ if they still think he's scum in their next post, same goes with Zito voting Hopkirk. Really zero reason votes should be held by anyone that's not Cabd at this stage.
I'm still really only at 75/25 on this one but yeah I guess we can start getting votes down in the interest of making sure we don't tread too close to the deadline.
In post 1090, Micc wrote:Re 1066: I don't get the attempt to paint me as not 100% trying to get Chip lynched for the middle parts of day 1. I'll admit i wasn't ready for a hammer until about 6 posts before it happened, but to act like i wasn't tyring to get him wagoned is silly. Hard to scum read hopkirk for this since hes coming at it from the angle that that im scum, but geez ill pull out quotes of me asking for a wagon if I have to.
In post 1129, Hopkirk wrote:@Micc/1090: Could you pull those up, since they’re the strongest reason for my suspicions.
In post 1162, Hopkirk wrote:That's a main part of what I'm saying. You weren't on him hard enough for it to be a hard bus.
Are you saying a hard bus makes me town or scum here? How about a softer bus?
I feel like I've lost track of what the point you're trying to make is right now.
Options
1.) Hard bus: pretty scummy.
2.) Strong push, but not hard bus: not scummy.
3.) Looks like strong push but isn't, busses when needed: moderately scummy.
I'm saying 1 isn't the case, since it doesn't look like a hard bus, and trying to determine whether it was 2 or 3. It's currently factored into my previous overall read as like a 2.5 though, so isn't enough either way to change my conclusion.
Also my pronoun is tagged on every single of the thousands of posts I've made on this website.