Game 31: Separated Scum

Page 6 of 17 Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 11 ... 17  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Game 31: Separated Scum

Post by Ed S. on Sun Jul 02, 2017 2:59 pm

Responses are in bold.
Maria S. wrote:I understand that its possible, but there must have been something that you saw that made you think of this possibility in the first place. From what I see there is minimal reasoning to support this reason from the way he posted. So what did you see in his posts that led you to that possibility?

[/b]I thought of this possibility Day One based on that fact itself (that he lynched you). I also thought of the possibility that he was town and genuinely thought you were scum. This is the kind of question that goes both ways not ways by the way-what do you see in the way he posts that would refute this possibility? You say that he was assertive, which isn’t indicative of alignment so much as it is of playstyle. The reason the possibility entered my mind to begin with was that his reasoning was at best weak and at worst a bad push.[/b]

I find it to be silly that scum would not lynch because he's too afraid to lynch a partner when in reality one lynch from one person probably wont stop the rest of town from lynching what they think to be the most likely person to be scum, especially when it was sometime in the middle(?) of day 1.

This may just be my opinion, but I don’t find it silly. As far as one lynch not stopping other people from lynching who they find to be the most likely, this is the exact reason that scum would make a lynch unlikely to gain momentum if they were worried about being perceived as hedging. “Look at me! I have an opinion! It’s not a popular one, but at least I’m not procrastinating on having to make a choice!”

In fact using that logic you can argue that a lynch on me from a scum!Roderick is because he believes I am less likely to be scum than other people and so he doesn't have to worry about his lynch causing the death of a scum.

I think if this were the case, a scum!Roderick would push more for what he believed to be a mislynch. Or at least included more/better reasoning with the original vote.

Since we’re in the process of discussing him by the way, what is your current read on Roderick?
avatar
Ed S.

Posts : 161
Join date : 2017-06-21
Location : Wherever Ed Sheeran is.

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game 31: Separated Scum

Post by Ed S. on Sun Jul 02, 2017 3:10 pm

I just realized there were two more paragraphs. Well done, Ed,you got distracted while splitting up the first one. I'm responding to them now, but I didn't want you to think I was just sitting here ignoring them.
avatar
Ed S.

Posts : 161
Join date : 2017-06-21
Location : Wherever Ed Sheeran is.

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game 31: Separated Scum

Post by Rhonda R. on Sun Jul 02, 2017 3:19 pm

I'm on vacation right now, getting back at some point tomorrow so I'll be able to post a full readlist then, but for now I'll add this to the discussion: Making all these assumptions and reads on Rodrick right now seems fairly pointless to me. He hasn't made enough posts for someone to truly be able to figure out his exact playstyle or thoroughly read him as town or scum. I'd like to see more activity out of him or a sub before I actually make a read on him.
avatar
Rhonda R.

Posts : 13
Join date : 2017-06-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game 31: Separated Scum

Post by Maria S. on Sun Jul 02, 2017 3:40 pm

Ed S. wrote:Responses are in bold.
Maria S. wrote:I understand that its possible, but there must have been something that you saw that made you think of this possibility in the first place. From what I see there is minimal reasoning to support this reason from the way he posted. So what did you see in his posts that led you to that possibility?

[/b]I thought of this possibility Day One based on that fact itself (that he lynched you). I also thought of the possibility that he was town and genuinely thought you were scum. This is the kind of question that goes both ways not ways by the way-what do you see in the way he posts that would refute this possibility? You say that he was assertive, which isn’t indicative of alignment so much as it is of playstyle. The reason the possibility entered my mind to begin with was that his reasoning was at best weak and at worst  a bad push.[/b]

I find it to be silly that scum would not lynch because he's too afraid to lynch a partner when in reality one lynch from one person probably wont stop the rest of town from lynching what they think to be the most likely person to be scum, especially when it was sometime in the middle(?) of day 1.

This may just be my opinion, but I don’t find it silly. As far as one lynch not stopping other people from lynching who they find to be the most likely, this is the exact reason that scum would make a lynch unlikely to gain momentum if they were worried about being perceived as hedging. “Look at me! I have an opinion! It’s not a popular one, but at least I’m not procrastinating on having to make a choice!”

In fact using that logic you can argue that a lynch on me from a scum!Roderick is because he believes I am less likely to be scum than other people and so he doesn't have to worry about his lynch causing the death of a scum.

I think if this were the case, a scum!Roderick would push more for what he believed to be a mislynch. Or at least included more/better reasoning with the original vote.

Since we’re in the process of discussing him by the way, what is your current read on Roderick?

1) When roderick lynched me he said that he didnt get the reason as to why I lynched Mr Cheeves in the first place, meaning that he placed the option of the fact he may have misinterpreted or just didnt understand why I lynched him. If it's true that he was reluctant to lynch in the first place then he would have tried to make certain what my reasoning was. Instead he was very assertive and the way he worded it made it sound like he believed his reasoning wasnt as weak as you say it is. This can be further supported by how he quoted Rhonda's pre-game post and exclaimed "why has no one pushed this yet" as if it was so obvious how scummy it is.

2) Unfortunately I am unsure of what you mean by "hedging". There is no such thing as a scummy lynch, its the reasoning behind it that makes it scummy. Therefore it doesnt matter who they lynch as long as they provide a good reason to do so. I think its silly that a mafia wouldnt lynch at all to not risk an ally dying because it's so easy to work around that idea with a decent enough reason and it also makes people who are undecided look more scummy.

3) Now its impossible to tell if Roderick is aware of his own inactiveness or is helpless because of IRL issues but like I said, his wording shows that he is completely convinced that his evidence and reasoning is sufficient for perhaps an early day 1 standard. We can never know if Roderick was planning on pushing further and so in that department, there is no way to tell scum!Roderick or town!Roderick from the extent of his push.

I dont like to give reads on people where my gut read is stronger than my rational read. Therefore I want to wait until roderick actually posts to give my rational read.
avatar
Maria S.

Posts : 47
Join date : 2017-06-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game 31: Separated Scum

Post by Maria S. on Sun Jul 02, 2017 3:42 pm

Rhonda R. wrote:I'm on vacation right now, getting back at some point tomorrow so I'll be able to post a full readlist then, but for now I'll add this to the discussion:  Making all these assumptions and reads on Rodrick right now seems fairly pointless to me.  He hasn't made enough posts for someone to truly be able to figure out his exact playstyle or thoroughly read him as town or scum.  I'd like to see more activity out of him or a sub before I actually make a read on him.

My original point was that Ed seemed to give a flawed reasoning as to why he thought town!Roderick is a possibility. The discussion of that topic turned into predictions of what Roderick was intending.
avatar
Maria S.

Posts : 47
Join date : 2017-06-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game 31: Separated Scum

Post by Ed S. on Sun Jul 02, 2017 3:43 pm

Maria S. wrote:
However your point would then contradict your other point that scum fly under the radar by just sheeping the general consensus since it risks lynching an ally. I said that if Roderick was attempting to fly under the radar, he would do this. This does not mean that I think all scum would do this.

Also you say that you expect scum to push harder, but doesnt that contradict your point that scum want to avoid being the cause of a fellow scum being lynched? If a scum!Roderick in fact believed you to be town, he would push harder for what he believed to be a mislynch in my opinion. This verges into extrapolation territory though, as we have no way of knowing if Roderick is the kind of player who would be confident enough to do this.

So which point in these contradictions is most likely to be the correct point since obviously they cant all be correct. And this is again why I am waiting for more content.

I dont agree that sheeping doesnt gather suspicion since people are aware that bandwagoning is a scummy trait and from how this game started, Roderick must have realised that the players here are fairly observant. When did I say that sheeping the consensus didn't gather suspicion? If anything, I said the opposite by point it out as something scum would do.

I also dont see why scum should push hard if they are pushing if it means risking an ally getting lynched. Now i know i said that I think its silly to suggest that scum wont lynch to avoid risking an ally dying but it makes sense that a scum wont push so that others dont get swayed and lynch a potential scum. I mentioned my thoughts on scum!Roderick pushing someone he believes to be town. He also barely actually pushed for your lynch, which could indicate caution on his part (more extrapolation, yay!).

In fact if we take a look at a pushing situation from 2 ends it shows that its never beneficial for mafia. If they push against a player that is widely scum/neutral read then they are risking an ally dying, but if they push a player that is widely town read then chances are that he garners suspicion on himself which obviously he wouldnt want to risk. Therefore I don't think your reasons as to what a scum should do and what Roderick is doing thats different is completely sound. This would indicate that it would be in scum's best interest to not push. Which is very close to what Roderick and Wilkinson did (they gave weak/no reasoning respectively), and exactly what Mr. Honcho did (by not giving opinions on people day one). It's also thus not much of a stretch to say that if scum doesn't benefit from not pushing, they might choose to not lynch anyone.
avatar
Ed S.

Posts : 161
Join date : 2017-06-21
Location : Wherever Ed Sheeran is.

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game 31: Separated Scum

Post by Ed S. on Sun Jul 02, 2017 3:46 pm

Maria S. wrote:
Rhonda R. wrote:I'm on vacation right now, getting back at some point tomorrow so I'll be able to post a full readlist then, but for now I'll add this to the discussion:  Making all these assumptions and reads on Rodrick right now seems fairly pointless to me.  He hasn't made enough posts for someone to truly be able to figure out his exact playstyle or thoroughly read him as town or scum.  I'd like to see more activity out of him or a sub before I actually make a read on him.

My original point was that Ed seemed to give a flawed reasoning as to why he thought town!Roderick is a possibility. The discussion of that topic turned into predictions of what Roderick was intending.
Summarized because I have to go, I think both town and scum versions of Roderick are possible because of possible motivations both ways for his posts day one.
avatar
Ed S.

Posts : 161
Join date : 2017-06-21
Location : Wherever Ed Sheeran is.

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game 31: Separated Scum

Post by Maria S. on Sun Jul 02, 2017 4:52 pm

Ed S. wrote:
Maria S. wrote:
However your point would then contradict your other point that scum fly under the radar by just sheeping the general consensus since it risks lynching an ally. I said that if Roderick was attempting to fly under the radar, he would do this. This does not mean that I think all scum would do this.

Also you say that you expect scum to push harder, but doesnt that contradict your point that scum want to avoid being the cause of a fellow scum being lynched? If a scum!Roderick in fact believed you to be town, he would push harder for what he believed to be a mislynch in my opinion. This verges into extrapolation territory though, as we have no way of knowing if Roderick is the kind of player who would be confident enough to do this.

So which point in these contradictions is most likely to be the correct point since obviously they cant all be correct. And this is again why I am waiting for more content.

I dont agree that sheeping doesnt gather suspicion since people are aware that bandwagoning is a scummy trait and from how this game started, Roderick must have realised that the players here are fairly observant. When did I say that sheeping the consensus didn't gather suspicion? If anything, I said the opposite by point it out as something scum would do.

I also dont see why scum should push hard if they are pushing if it means risking an ally getting lynched. Now i know i said that I think its silly to suggest that scum wont lynch to avoid risking an ally dying but it makes sense that a scum wont push so that others dont get swayed and lynch a potential scum. I mentioned my thoughts on scum!Roderick pushing someone he believes to be town. He also barely actually pushed for your lynch, which could indicate caution on his part (more extrapolation, yay!).

In fact if we take a look at a pushing situation from 2 ends it shows that its never beneficial for mafia. If they push against a player that is widely scum/neutral read then they are risking an ally dying, but if they push a player that is widely town read then chances are that he garners suspicion on himself which obviously he wouldnt want to risk. Therefore I don't think your reasons as to what a scum should do and what Roderick is doing thats different is completely sound. This would indicate that it would be in scum's best interest to not push. Which is very close to what Roderick and Wilkinson did (they gave weak/no reasoning respectively), and exactly what Mr. Honcho did (by not giving opinions on people day one). It's also thus not much of a stretch to say that if scum doesn't benefit from not pushing, they might choose to not lynch anyone.

1) Yeah but I was also saying that if he was gonna fly under the radar, him sheeping the general consensus would mean he's risking the death of a potential scum (which is higher since its the general consensus). So I am saying that he wouldnt do that if he was gonna fly under the radar.

2) Looking back at the situation then, info was still limited to a few people like Mr Cheeves and others who were perceived to be more scummy. Therefore although it's a weak reason, he clearly tried to exhaust all his resources (my posts) to build a case against me, which makes the push fairly hard given the resources he had to work with. A hard push doesnt necessarily mean a strong reason.

3) Therefore all the more reason for him to not use that method to fly under the radar which backs up my point in 1)

4) Rhonda is also a person imo that hasnt really been pushing. Giving a readlist and contributing doesnt mean pushing, in fact quite a few of her posts is her clarifying what other people mean which is effectively the opposite of pushing. The fact that you said "they might choose" just turned this whole point from a matter of something a scum would do, to something you would do depending on your playstyle. Therefore your point that mafia wouldnt want to lynch doesnt apply anymore since there is clearly more factors that decide if someone wants to lynch someone or not.
avatar
Maria S.

Posts : 47
Join date : 2017-06-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game 31: Separated Scum

Post by Ed S. on Sun Jul 02, 2017 5:19 pm

I'm back now. Maria, you seem to imply with your response to Rhonda that you don't find town!Roderick a possibility. I'd like to hear your reasoning for this. Additionally, I feel as though I'm going in circles regarding our discussion about Roderick (I feel like I'm narrating extrapolations and wifom), so what is, in one or two sentences, the problem you have with my initial comment on him?

(After I typed this, Maria's new post appeared. Below is what I typed after seeing it.)

1) I find it unlikely Roderick is trying to fly under the radar to begin with, so that point's been discussing a hypothetical neither of us believe to be true.

2) I think the amount of reasoning is part of what makes a push strong/weak. If there's a greater amount of/more compelling evidence against someone, it gives more legitimacy to the push on them and makes others more likely to follow it.

3) See 1. I don't think he's trying to fly under the radar.

4) I'd been going to wait until later into today to bring up Rhonda because I wanted to see if this "town mediator" trend continued into Day Two. (It has with her most recent post, but I was hoping to come to this conclusion at a point where she had more content.) I don't see how my saying "they might choose" changes this to a matter of playstyle-I'm bringing up something that scum might do. I don't see how this invalidates my point. There are of course multiple factors affecting whether someone lynches or not, and this is one of them. I don't see why it should be ignored.
avatar
Ed S.

Posts : 161
Join date : 2017-06-21
Location : Wherever Ed Sheeran is.

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game 31: Separated Scum

Post by Maria S. on Sun Jul 02, 2017 5:48 pm

Ed S. wrote:I'm back now. Maria, you seem to imply with your response to Rhonda that you don't find town!Roderick a possibility. I'd like to hear your reasoning for this. Additionally, I feel as though I'm going in circles regarding our discussion about Roderick (I feel like I'm narrating extrapolations and wifom), so what is, in one or two sentences, the problem you have with my initial comment on him?

(After I typed this, Maria's new post appeared. Below is what I typed after seeing it.)

1) I find it unlikely Roderick is trying to fly under the radar to begin with, so that point's been discussing a hypothetical neither of us believe to be true.

2) I think the amount of reasoning is part of what makes a push strong/weak. If there's a greater amount of/more compelling evidence against someone, it gives more legitimacy to the push on them and makes others more likely to follow it.

3) See 1. I don't think he's trying to fly under the radar.

4) I'd been going to wait until later into today to bring up Rhonda because I wanted to see if this "town mediator" trend continued into Day Two. (It has with her most recent post, but I was hoping to come to this conclusion at a point where she had more content.) I don't see how my saying "they might choose" changes this to a matter of playstyle-I'm bringing up something that scum might do. I don't see how this invalidates my point. There are of course multiple factors affecting whether someone lynches or not, and this is one of them. I don't see why it should be ignored.

It's not that i dont find town!Roderick a possibility, I just thought your reasoning for a town!Roderick was flawed. The problem I have with your initial comment is that you say Roderick was reluctant to lynch however, his phrasing and the way he also commented on Rhonda's post clearly suggest otherwise. Also you say he's "aware that not lynching could garner suspicion" however I dont think he was aware in the first place since not only did Magnus not mention it at the time (i think?), you pointed out before that Roderick didn't realise that scum didnt know each other in the first place (of course this is all assuming he's town and didnt just pretend to not know). Therefore Roderick wouldnt have realised that not lynching could garner suspicion. I think that your point A is fine but your point B is completely flawed.

Of course a strong push is due to strong reasoning but if we look at it on his end, it looks like he exhausted pretty much all his resources to build a case against me and so it shows that his intent was to push hard against me and not just coz he was reluctant but wanted to lynch.

I dont think it's right to say that someone who decides not to lynch is scummy due to the reason of not wanting to lynch your teammates. There are so many factors that make up the lynching decision that it dilutes this reason, one of which is your playstyle. Therefore when being accused of such a reason, it's so easy to find an excuse (which may well be true) which pretty much wastes time. Which is why I think this reason doesn't make much sense to use as a way to build a case.
avatar
Maria S.

Posts : 47
Join date : 2017-06-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game 31: Separated Scum

Post by Ed S. on Sun Jul 02, 2017 6:19 pm

Ed S. wrote:
This has turned out to be the only other thing I want to add currently. Roderick is the closest thing I have to a neutral read because I cannot discern any kind of town or scum motivation for him to lynch Maria. His reasoning is weak but scum would (A) probably pick an easier target and (B) make more of an effort to push their lynch. Two counterpoints to this are (A) Roderick was trying to discredit Maria, who is widely townread or (B) Roderick was reluctant to lynch but aware he'd garner suspicion if he didn't, thus picking someone unlikely to gain support as opposed to potentially being perceived as bandwagoning on a more popular lynch.

This is my initial post regarding Roderick. Any post following an (A) or (B) is hypothetical and I don't believe there is enough to prove or disprove it. The second set of (A) and (B) are a set of counterpoints to my first set. Point (A2) is a counter to (A1), and the same goes for the (B)s. The scenario I refer to in the second (B) is one in which a scum!Roderick sees his role PM, sees the setup,and concludes before posting anything that he needs to lynch someone to avoid seeming suspicious. He thus randvotes to ensure this, then goes back and reads before voting for Maria, a vote that was very unlikely to gain traction. This is one of my points for a scum Roderick though. Just because Magnus hadn't pointed something out at the time doesn't mean that Roderick didn't realize it on his own.

I'm no more confident that this is the case than I am about a scum!Roderick putting more effort into a push. I will admit that (B) is less likely to be the case given his comment on scum knowing each other, but because that's something scum can easily fake I don't want to dismiss the possibility entirely.

I agree with your last paragraph in that someone not lynching should not be the defining factor of a read on them. However, it becomes more noticeable when in conjunction with not giving much of an opinion on people to begin with (see: Mr. Honcho, Rhonda).
avatar
Ed S.

Posts : 161
Join date : 2017-06-21
Location : Wherever Ed Sheeran is.

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game 31: Separated Scum

Post by Maria S. on Sun Jul 02, 2017 6:37 pm

Ed S. wrote:
Ed S. wrote:
This has turned out to be the only other thing I want to add currently. Roderick is the closest thing I have to a neutral read because I cannot discern any kind of town or scum motivation for him to lynch Maria. His reasoning is weak but scum would (A) probably pick an easier target and (B) make more of an effort to push their lynch. Two counterpoints to this are (A) Roderick was trying to discredit Maria, who is widely townread or (B) Roderick was reluctant to lynch but aware he'd garner suspicion if he didn't, thus picking someone unlikely to gain support as opposed to potentially being perceived as bandwagoning on a more popular lynch.

This is my initial post regarding Roderick. Any post following an (A) or (B) is hypothetical and I don't believe there is enough to prove or disprove it. The second set of (A) and (B) are a set of counterpoints to my first set. Point (A2) is a counter to (A1), and the same goes for the (B)s. The scenario I refer to in the second (B) is one in which a scum!Roderick sees his role PM, sees the setup,and concludes before posting anything that he needs to lynch someone to avoid seeming suspicious. He thus randvotes to ensure this, then goes back and reads before voting for Maria, a vote that was very unlikely to gain traction. This is one of my points for a scum Roderick though. Just because Magnus hadn't pointed something out at the time doesn't mean that Roderick didn't realize it on his own.

I'm no more confident that this is the case than I am about a scum!Roderick putting more effort into a push. I will admit that (B) is less likely to be the case given his comment on scum knowing each other, but because that's something scum can easily fake I don't want to dismiss the possibility entirely.

I agree with your last paragraph in that someone not lynching should not be the defining factor of a read on them. However, it becomes more noticeable when in conjunction with not giving much of an opinion on people to begin with (see: Mr. Honcho, Rhonda).

Yes i was referring to B2, (i am getting u mean town!Roderick btw). Although its true that just because magnus didnt point it out doesnt mean he didnt realise on his own, like I said he didnt even realise that scum didnt know each other (since you pointed out that be said "as if she knew that she was lynching town" or something like that). If she didnt know that, how could she possibly make the connection that mafia might not lynch because they dont know each other? Therefore this hypothetical situation couldnt possibly happen for town!Roderick. However for scum!Roderick it makes sense because he pretended to not know and so he could have made the connection stated above. Therefore my conclusion still stands that ur point B for town!Roderick is flawed.
avatar
Maria S.

Posts : 47
Join date : 2017-06-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game 31: Separated Scum

Post by Maria S. on Sun Jul 02, 2017 6:45 pm

Actually wait i am really confused now, A1 and B1 are what scum would do. So A2 and B2 are town things that roderick did that counters A1 and B1. Therefore A2 and B2 are reasons as to why town!Roderick might be a thing right? My whole argument is that B2 is flawed if come from a town!Roderick persepctive.
avatar
Maria S.

Posts : 47
Join date : 2017-06-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game 31: Separated Scum

Post by Ed S. on Sun Jul 02, 2017 6:53 pm

I think part of the confusion is that you started referring to yourself in the third person with the "she." I am slightly confused by the first of those two posts because if a scum!Roderick can pretend to not know something, what prevents a town!Roderick from genuinely not knowing it (however frustrating that would be)?

A1 and B1 are things I would expect scum to do that I don't think Roderick did (hence in favor of town!Roderick). A2 and B2 are possible motivations for a scum!Roderick to do what he did (in favor of a scum!Roderick).
avatar
Ed S.

Posts : 161
Join date : 2017-06-21
Location : Wherever Ed Sheeran is.

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game 31: Separated Scum

Post by Ed S. on Sun Jul 02, 2017 6:56 pm

I should have mentioned this a while ago by the way, but the effect of my pressuring Wilkinson has diminished due to plurality no longer being on him. I'm fine with a Mr. Honcho lynch, but in this case Wilkinson becomes my preferred Vigilante shot. Kodama remains second for reasons mentioned earlier.

Tfw I get the "a new message has appeared" thing and it's my own message.
avatar
Ed S.

Posts : 161
Join date : 2017-06-21
Location : Wherever Ed Sheeran is.

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game 31: Separated Scum

Post by ajhockeystar on Mon Jul 03, 2017 12:01 am

Votecount 2.2
******************************

Mr. Honcho(2)- Kodama N., Magnus D.
Wilkinson A.(1)- Ed S.
Rhonda R.(0)-
Maria S.(0)-
Kodama N.(0)-
Mona L.(0)-
Magnus D.(0)-
Ed S.(0)-
Roderick S.(0)-
Not Voting(6)- Mr. Honcho, Mona L., Rhonda R., Maria S., Roderick S., Wilkinson A.
******************************
There are 9 alive so it takes 5 to hammer. Plurality applies.
Deadline is Tuesday the 4th at 9pm EST.

If the deadline was now, Mr. Honcho would be lynched.
avatar
ajhockeystar
Admin

Posts : 884
Join date : 2014-01-11

View user profile http://psanon.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Game 31: Separated Scum

Post by Maria S. on Mon Jul 03, 2017 3:30 am

Ed S. wrote:I think part of the confusion is that you started referring to yourself in the third person with the "she." I am slightly confused by the first of those two posts because if a scum!Roderick can pretend to not know something, what prevents a town!Roderick from genuinely not knowing it (however frustrating that would be)?

A1 and B1 are things I would expect scum to do that I don't think Roderick did (hence in favor of town!Roderick). A2 and B2 are possible motivations for a scum!Roderick to do what he did (in favor of a scum!Roderick).

Nah basically i used she in the brackets as if i was roderick talking about myself but then i accidently started calling roderick a she. I also meant "guessing" instead if "getting". It was very late in the day lol. In my first post, i never said town!Roderick couldnt have genuinely forgotten about it. I said that it's clear that a town!Roderick did forget about it which in turn would mean that the situation described in B2 couldnt possibly happen if roderick was town.

Wait so if A2 and B2 are what a scum!Roderick would do, then how come A2 "roderick discredited maria" shows that roderick picked a harder target when you said in A1 that a scum!Roderick would have picked an easier target. Therefore it shows that A1 is coming from a town!Roderick. Unless i am not fully getting what u mean by "discredited".

It's ridiculous how much this game died down though...
avatar
Maria S.

Posts : 47
Join date : 2017-06-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game 31: Separated Scum

Post by Ed S. on Mon Jul 03, 2017 12:07 pm

I don't mean for this to be sarcastic, it'sjust that the definition Google provides the the best way I can think of to phrase it.

Discredit-harm the good reputation of (someone or something). (In this case someone who hasn't come under very much suspicion. Since the scumteam only has one nightkill, they can potentially find themselves in trouble later on if people have had many of the other players as locktown all game.)

A2 is a reason that a scum!Roderick might have picked a harder target. To rephrase A1 and A2: "I think scum would have picked an easier target unless they were trying to discredit someone." A1 is in favor of a town!Roderick, A2 is a reason for a scum!Roderick and why I wanted to see more of his thoughts on his vote.

Also, yeah. There's a lot I was watching for in Day Two and so far the only thing related to it has been Rhonda's post. People will be prodded, at least. I'm starting to wonder if people saw our conversation and thought they could fade into the background, in which case: this is not the case. We would appreciate your input.
avatar
Ed S.

Posts : 161
Join date : 2017-06-21
Location : Wherever Ed Sheeran is.

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game 31: Separated Scum

Post by Ed S. on Mon Jul 03, 2017 12:38 pm

(This may or may not post twice. I'm not sure if it will,and I'm sorry if it does.)

I'm leaning more neutral on Magnus by the way, and here's why.

Magnus, who was fairly active Day One, was to my surprise one of the people who faded into the background Day Two. I’ve seen him come on since his last post, and I’d have expected him to have some thoughts on the discussion considering his read on Roderick (and the fact that Maria asked him about it in relation to his read on Mona). He also did something that may only be a problem for me, which is “ask me anything.” I feel like when people do this, they’re asking to be guided along a conversation as opposed to creating discussion themselves, which is rather passive. Magnus is not a passive player, from what I’ve seen. I’d be interested in hearing his read on Kodama too-prior to Day Two the last time you mentioned him was during Day One, when you mentioned a point in his defense to Kazalie. I assume based on this that you didn’t have him as low as you do now, so why did the shift have such a significant effect on it Day Two (especially when it already was a topic of discussion during Day One)?

I was going to bring up something else regarding Magnus too, but I got distracted and forgot what it was. I’ll look through the thread and see if I can remember.

As far as my reads as a whole go, little has changed from the end of Day One. The overall order is Maria>Mona>Magnus>Roderick>Rhonda>Kodama>Mr. Honcho>Wilkinson. A better breakdown of it is below.

Maria (Town)
Mona (Town lean)
Magnus (Neutral, leaning town)
Roderick (Neutral)
Rhonda (Neutral, leaning scum)
Kodama (Scum lean)
Mr. Honcho (Scum)
Wilkinson (Scum)

I don’t know how much I’ll be able to be online tomorrow, which is the last day of Day Two. It’s unlikely that this will be my last post, but to basically everyone but Maria: please join us. What do you think of Wilkinson/Mr. Honcho? Of mine and Maria’s discussion? Of Rhonda’s continued lack of opinion? Or who should be lynched or Vigged?
avatar
Ed S.

Posts : 161
Join date : 2017-06-21
Location : Wherever Ed Sheeran is.

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game 31: Separated Scum

Post by Maria S. on Mon Jul 03, 2017 1:29 pm

Ed S. wrote:I don't mean for this to be sarcastic, it'sjust that the definition Google provides the the best way I can think of to phrase it.

Discredit-harm the good reputation of (someone or something). (In this case someone who hasn't come under very much suspicion. Since the scumteam only has one nightkill, they can potentially find themselves in trouble later on if people have had many of the other players as locktown all game.)

A2 is a reason that a scum!Roderick might have picked a harder target. To rephrase A1 and A2: "I think scum would have picked an easier target unless they were trying to discredit someone." A1 is in favor of a town!Roderick, A2 is a reason for a scum!Roderick and why I wanted to see more of his thoughts on his vote.

Also, yeah. There's a lot I was watching for in Day Two and so far the only thing related to it has been Rhonda's post. People will be prodded, at least. I'm starting to wonder if people saw our conversation and thought they could fade into the background, in which case: this is not the case. We would appreciate your input.

It kinda sucks that the discussion ended unprogressively due to it stemming from a simple misunderstanding on my end, however i feel as though pressure points against roderick can be plucked out from the barracade of posts.

Roderick you seem to assertively suggest that I am scum based on the pre-game post, my opposition to RVS day 1 and my "tone". I can use the argument of "tone" to question your aggressive tone that suggests urgency for answers (which is a good thing) however it doesnt line up with the fact you went online a day after you said ur post, at which several people answered and questioned your reasoning, yet you didnt reply at all which demeans the suggestion that you had an urgency for answers and instead suggests that all you were doing was trying to discredit me and also discredit ed by trying to use his pre-game post as a reason for him to be scummy. I also find it hypocritical that you think I am scum because you didnt get my reasoning as to why I lynched Mr cheeves yet when your reasoning was questioned you just ignored it.
avatar
Maria S.

Posts : 47
Join date : 2017-06-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game 31: Separated Scum

Post by Mona L. on Mon Jul 03, 2017 2:52 pm

I'm just popping in to say that I apologize for not being online earlier, but something happened and I'm really busy right now, I don't have time (or energy) to go through everything I've missed right now, but I do want you guys to know that I will catch up to what's going on, I'll try to do so tomorrow. Also important to know that I didn't just randomly drop off the face of the earth.
avatar
Mona L.

Posts : 36
Join date : 2017-06-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game 31: Separated Scum

Post by ajhockeystar on Mon Jul 03, 2017 9:46 pm

Votecount 2.3
******************************

Mr. Honcho(2)- Kodama N., Magnus D.
Wilkinson A.(1)- Ed S.
Rhonda R.(0)-
Maria S.(0)-
Kodama N.(0)-
Mona L.(0)-
Magnus D.(0)-
Ed S.(0)-
Roderick S.(0)-
Not Voting(6)- Mr. Honcho, Mona L., Rhonda R., Maria S., Roderick S., Wilkinson A.
******************************
There are 9 alive so it takes 5 to hammer. Plurality applies.
Deadline is Tuesday the 4th at 9pm EST.

If the deadline was now, Mr. Honcho would be lynched.
avatar
ajhockeystar
Admin

Posts : 884
Join date : 2014-01-11

View user profile http://psanon.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Game 31: Separated Scum

Post by ajhockeystar on Mon Jul 03, 2017 9:50 pm

Something I should probably mention- Mafia's wincon is not "You win when the number of Mafia is equal to half of the players alive, and nothing can stop that from happening", and instead just "You win when the number of Mafia is equal to half of the players alive". This means regardless of what roles are alive, if it gets to 50% Mafia/50% Town, Mafia wins.
avatar
ajhockeystar
Admin

Posts : 884
Join date : 2014-01-11

View user profile http://psanon.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Game 31: Separated Scum

Post by Maria S. on Tue Jul 04, 2017 3:36 am

So not only is this game completely dead, AJ tells us that mafia can win from this day. I had high hopes with such a fruitful day 1 (regardless that 2 townies ended up dying) but that gives no excuse for everyone to just stop posting. Now i feel like we're lucky if we get past day 2...

I think that if we decide to lynch mr honcho today then most people are gonna just sheep it with a half decent reason and not much is gonna come out of it. For that reason I think the vig should be the one to kill mr honcho.

Now as I said before i dont think theres a good chance of wilkinson being mafia, I also dont think roderick should be lynched either. Ed shouldnt be lynched for obvious reasons either. So that leaves magnus, rhonda, kodama and mona. I dont like how magnus stopped posting despite the fact he was online when i asked him why roderick was higher than mona (could this be a sign that magnus inspected roderick and flipped scum? Regardless of whether roderick is miller or not it would still mean magnus is scum). I dont like how rhonda never pushes anyone and regurgitates other people's ideas by saying "they brought up a good point by saying .... what are your thoughts?" Or something like that. I feel like despite kodama having all these scunmy points, i feel a sense of genuinity in his posts. However this doesnt alleviate any of these scummy points. Finally Mona has also been fairly under the radar but she says shr's gonna post today so i'll wait for that. I gtg tho so i'll post again later
avatar
Maria S.

Posts : 47
Join date : 2017-06-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game 31: Separated Scum

Post by Ed S. on Tue Jul 04, 2017 7:34 am

I can admit to being the person who asked AJ about the scumteam's wincon. I didn't bring it up in the hopes that scum hadn't realized it, and although it's been mentioned now I don't think we should go into detail with how (in case that hasn't been realized, granted it's somewhat easy to figure out). But I also got excited about being the active game, and Game 30 has surpassed us. At least people will be prodded.

List of things I'm hoping to see: People's readlists, the promised posts from Mona and Rhonda, an answer from Kodama (Maria effectively summed up what I was going to say on the last page), virtually anything from Roderick, answers from Magnus, a number of other things I've been watching for but don't want to bring wifom into.

Maria brings up a good point with people sheeping the Mr. Honcho lynch, so to the people currently on him (Kodama and Magnus)-assume that Mr. Honcho is suddenly a confirmed Innocent Child. What do you do now? (Yes, I asked Kodama this with Mr. Cheeves and it was invalid, but in this case I think it holds more validity.) Also to Maria, how would you currently list the remaining four players you list in order of town>scum?
avatar
Ed S.

Posts : 161
Join date : 2017-06-21
Location : Wherever Ed Sheeran is.

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game 31: Separated Scum

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 6 of 17 Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 11 ... 17  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum