-->
@David
i did announce the wincon change
Buddas Beginner Series 1.2 ENDGAME
Posts
Total:
69
I think a better balanced setup would have beengoongodfathermillerinsane copsane copparanoid copbodyguard
i honestly dont see much of a difference in this. If anything this game seems like it would be slightly more scum sided. I added watcher because fmpov town needed one non-cop role that was sane. The presence of 3 cops, even 2 really, is a big signal to ignore cop results and stick to reads. Maybe
-goon
-goon
-roleblocker
-watcher
-paranoid cop
-naive cop
-bulletproof
-tracker
hrmmmmmm
-->
@Smithereens
This game was actually way closer than it appears. I was definitely going to ride you down until harder1 for absolutely NO FKN REASON at all decided to slowplay his town role.Bruh you were after GP, an obvs townie. You missed virt being an obvs scum and you never voted for me cuz you had too many better targets. GP was the only person who noticed some of the obvious shit I was pulling so if anyone I think he gets town mvp.
I want every freekin person who was town to go back that day and understand that this was absolutely the worst play as town when the day was MYLO. I had to make a decision between smith and harder1 which did NOT have to be the case at all if harder1 played like the rest of the town was playing.
Anyways gg..and I almost got ya smithy.....woulda got you for sure if it wasn't mylo.
The only 2 people actively defending Virt was harder1 and smithereens....why harder..whyyy????? Goddammit whyyy???
Also...fear the parrot..be afraid.
-->
@Greyparrot
tbh Harder was right that you were wishy washy in ur reads, the motive was obviously knowing you are town, that you wanted to lynch scum and were willing to compromise. But sometimes, as illustrated in 1.1, you dont compromise, you stick to ur guns. if anything, 1Harders post should have been a wake up call that you werent remaining consistent. Lack of consistency is, i think we can agree, slightly scummy, and i probably would have called you out for it.
Though being honest, man, Virt and Smithers let on so hardcore they knew more than a towny otherwise should lol. Endgame for 1.1 i pointed this out as a HUGE scum tell, and this game was perfectly illustrative of that. It almost looks like the game was scripted to reinforce that point xD.
Though being honest, man, Virt and Smithers let on so hardcore they knew more than a towny otherwise should lol. Endgame for 1.1 i pointed this out as a HUGE scum tell, and this game was perfectly illustrative of that. It almost looks like the game was scripted to reinforce that point xD.
-->
@Buddamoose
Yeah..but look back...smith was going down hard with my vote on him and 2 followup posts justifying it... until XLAV pointed out harder's tunnel defense of Virtuoso PLUS his slowplay.
Harder hands down and without any doubt lost the game for town.
I literally slowplay every game, especially as town in a 72 hour DP. Hell, I slowplay as town in 10 minute live mafia DPs. If your behaviour analysis on me tells you I'm scum for slowplaying, you need to learn how I play.
-->
@1harderthanyouthink
It was a combination of you defending Virt.
Look, you can bark the "learn to deal with me" all you want, but I wasn't the only town mislead by your playstyle and your behavior.
Take if for what you will.
-->
@Greyparrot
Maybe y'all shouldn't have kept me at L-1, before blaming me for having inconsistent and weak reads.
-->
@1harderthanyouthink
Wow, I never took you for that type of personality. Noted.
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm sorry if I'm not being nice today. Not in the mood to be shit on.
-->
@1harderthanyouthink
I really don't care if you're interested in empathy or not. I am discussing a game and the mechanics of the game and behavioral cues.
I thought you were more detached and logical than this.
-->
@Greyparrot
I was giving answers. I gave a behavioral analysis. I said I'd be back in an hour because XLAV wasn't responding very fast and not at all to the substance of what I said and I couldn't check my phone. Nobody unvoted. Virtuoso ended the game. I'm not sure what you want me to do there.
None of you even addressed this
Of course I was trying not to lynch Virtuoso at that point. I wanted the scum first after RM started saying I was Lyncher and then that Virt was Jester.
-->
@1harderthanyouthink
Look, obviously you're not seeing things with the right perspective. It's understandable. Go read XLAVS post with his 4 links showing things you did that were poor choices as town.
-->
@Greyparrot
I really dont think worry of a Jester is necessarily scummy. He was defending Virt because Jester was a possibility. And though i agree with you that Virts behavior didnt quite make sense as town, to others that may not be true. And that disagreeance, does not in itself = mafia. If that disagreeance was inconsistent with another read of similar variety, maybe. But standalone, hardly the case fmpov
and the thing about Jesters is, if someone thinks a person may be Jester, and they are town, they are going to be pretty firm in not lynching them, because that loses town the game. Vehemence in defense of Virt wasnt indicative of town or scum, it was null. Because a towny and mafia would be equally vehement in their defense because a Jester lynch = loss for both. And last i checked, you play to win the game, not to lose it...
The mistake was lynching harder 1st. Virt was more scummy than harder, behavior and role claim wise. It's evident in the scum pile I showed Smith with Virt being on top. Everyone got too paranoid with the Jester, but I'll take the blame for leading everyone to harder and not Virt 1st.
Maybe in DP3 Harder's post would have been better, but who knows. Smith played very well by buddying the fuck out of me. It was pretty obvious that I was doing the majority of the scum hunting and I needed a 2nd opinion to help me.
RM is unreliable.
Grey just followed my reads.
Harder just lacked activity and analysis on his earlier posts.
I couldn't see anyone better but Smiths who sadly was scum.
-->
@Buddamoose
I had a feeling you'd do 3 flavored cops. I didn't trust the feeling and thought I should be a legit cop after seeing RM was naive and result I got is similar with my read on harder, lol.
-->
@Greyparrot
XLAV's case against Harder was predicated on assuming his guilty result on him was true. His case in itself was weak AF and presented null tells as scum tells despite that not making sense.
Lets examine his post that made the case for harder:
Lets examine his post that made the case for harder:
I'd rather vote harder.destroying a town read. scum tell
It was a bunk ass TR to begin with and Harder was right to point that out. Being a bodyguard, especially in a game where the mod specifically warned against role confirmation =/= affiliation confirmation is right to be pointed out. Not to mention, disagreeing with a read is something a town or mafia would be equally liable to do. A towny because they disagree with it, and if they do, arguing against it is arguing against what will in their view lead to a loss. Mafia would do so because they want to obfuscate and destroy TR's. ITS NULL
In a game where the possibility of TP's, particularly Jester was outright stated, TP paranoia is like, totally merited? Why the fuck would it not be? This is, again, a null tell. Both Mafia, and Town, in a game where it is outright stated TP's can be included, is not in itself, a scum tell. Maybe in combination with other more concrete scumtells, but so far none has been presented. Ergo, it has to be null
Plus the fact that he's trying to keep Virt alive and not scum hunting at all.
He's trying to keep Virt alive because he thought he was Jester. If he is lynched, town loses, mafia loses. This is again, a null tell. Both mafia and town, would want to avoid lynching a jester, because it means they both lose. Seriously? This is some wtf shit
TP paranoia and defending VirtI don't think a Harder-RM is scum team is a possibility due to their interaction, but a Virt-harder is.
Sure, but possible scum teams, only matter, if you have scum tells to back up that both may be scum. Or else you are throwing out unsubstantiated assumptions. This is exactly what it was, an unsubstantiated assumption, based upon things that are null tells. I mean jesus, i had to point out to XLAV in 1.1 endgame, that no, mafia are not going to focus on set-up, BECAUSE THEY KNOW MORE AND THAT WILL GIVE THEM AWAY AS MAFIA.
Like, for real, thats assuming mafia will behave in a way that is unconducive to winning. Which is absurd to posit, because you play to win the game...
Basically, what we have here, is absolute rubbish as a case. Plain and simply put. It was null tells trumped up as scum tells, because XLAV had a guilty on 1harder. This is quite obvious, because as was just illustrated, its not too hard to point out that every behavioral read, is predicated on null tells. And the only way null tells start looking scummy, is if there is something causing oneself to view them as scummy... like idk, maybe a guilty result? That definitely would create confirmation bias.
and on the note of XLAV saying that wasn't what was happening here, sure buddy, you can say that, but your actions tell a wholly different story.
and on the note of XLAV saying that wasn't what was happening here, sure buddy, you can say that, but your actions tell a wholly different story.
And I'm taking the blame because I actually didn't believe the jester claim but still lead a harder lynch, lol.
-->
@XLAV
If harder just made 1 good move as town (not tunnel virt, reveal town role, comment about my analysis about smithereens scummy behavior...reading me as a clear town from day 1)
Any 1 of these 4 things would have been an auto town win. I get it, when you end up being that town guy that gets mislynched, it's automatic that you are going to feel "oh my god you guys suck"
I just want harder to realize his mistakes.
-->
@Buddamoose
I never bought that Virt was jester, at any time.
I was pretty sure he was scum or TP, but I wanted to use him to get the other guy.
-->
@XLAV
no, XLAV, you have part of the blame because you trumped up a case on someone that was predicated upon null tells or possible scum teams without any concrete scum tells to hold both players as independently scummy. Again, just because you thought Virt wasn't Jester, doesnt automatically mean thinking he was Jester is scummy. A towny and mafia would be equally likely to argue against a lynch of someone they think might be jester, because, again, that means they lose.
Im just over here wondering how much longer you are going to keep operating as if it makes sense that players would operate against what is conducive to achieving their win con xD
-->
@Buddamoose
It's null if they only did it a few times. It's starts becoming a scum tell once they keep redoing it. This is one the scum tells I made that FT caught me way back.It was a bunk ass TR to begin with and Harder was right to point that out. Being a bodyguard, especially in a game where the mod specifically warned against role confirmation =/= affiliation confirmation is right to be pointed out. Not to mention, disagreeing with a read is something a town or mafia would be equally liable to do. A towny because they disagree with it, and if they do, arguing against it is arguing against what will in their view lead to a loss. Mafia would do so because they want to obfuscate and destroy TR's. ITS NULL
In a game where the possibility of TP's, particularly Jester was outright stated, TP paranoia is like, totally merited? Why the fuck would it not be? This is, again, a null tell. Both Mafia, and Town, in a game where it is outright stated TP's can be included, is not in itself, a scum tell. Maybe in combination with other more concrete scumtells, but so far none has been presented. Ergo, it has to be null
No it's not. Town needs to lynch scum, whether it be mafia or TP. They're all the same shit. Does it really matter if they're TP? Unless there's a special circumstance, no it doesn't. It's fine saying that there could be TP in the game, but when it starts becoming TP hunting, then that a scum tell. It's scum tell because it's one of the few ways mafia can act like they're genuinely scum hunting.
He's trying to keep Virt alive because he thought he was Jester. If he is lynched, town loses, mafia loses. This is again, a null tell. Both mafia and town, would want to avoid lynching a jester, because it means they both lose. Seriously? This is some wtf shit
This was me assuming a harder-Virt mafia team. But I can see where you're coming from.
Sure, but possible scum teams, only matter, if you have scum tells to back up that both may be scum. Or else you are throwing out unsubstantiated assumptions. This is exactly what it was, an unsubstantiated assumption, based upon things that are null tells. I mean jesus, i had to point out to XLAV in 1.1 endgame, that no, mafia are not going to focus on set-up, BECAUSE THEY KNOW MORE AND THAT WILL GIVE THEM AWAY AS MAFIA.
But wait, didn't Virt and Smith just focused on set-up in DP2?
I'm pretty sure there's more but I'm too lazy to search it.
Scum will focus on set-up because it will make them look like they're analyzing the game, thus scum tell.So I don't understand the point you're trying to make here.
Like, for real, thats assuming mafia will behave in a way that is unconducive to winning. Which is absurd to posit, because you play to win the game...
That's why they're called slips for a reason.
Basically, what we have here, is absolute rubbish as a case. Plain and simply put. It was null tells trumped up as scum tells, because XLAV had a guilty on 1harder. This is quite obvious, because as was just illustrated, its not too hard to point out that every behavioral read, is predicated on null tells. And the only way null tells start looking scummy, is if there is something causing oneself to view them as scummy... like idk, maybe a guilty result? That definitely would create confirmation bias.and on the note of XLAV saying that wasn't what was happening here, sure buddy, you can say that, but your actions tell a wholly different story.
I scum read 1harder not because of the result. I scum read him because of my analysis. Hell, I used my analysis on harder to see if I was a legit cop, which I thought I was after I felt confident on a harder lynch. The 'null tells' you're saying are null tells to you because you're the mod who already knows the affiliations of his players. That's confirmation bias.
-->
@Greyparrot
I never said you did, but just because someone disagrees with you doesnt make them scum for doing so. It was correct that Virts behavior didnt match with a pursuit of win-con as a jester. But, if a towny disagrees, they will be just as vehement in preventing that lynch as a mafia would be, because lynching jester = everyone loses. Again, you play to win the game, and this is one of the foundations of behavioral analysis. That would you make use of analyzing pursuit of win con, but then choose to disregard that such a lens of analysis would necessitate that Harders defense of Virt was null, is just inconsistent in application of metrics.
-->
@Buddamoose
Go read my post about the 4 things.
it's death by a hundred beestings.
-->
@Buddamoose
no, XLAV, you have part of the blame because you trumped up a case on someone that was predicated upon null tells or possible scum teams without any concrete scum tells to hold both players as independently scummy. Again, just because you thought Virt wasn't Jester, doesnt automatically mean thinking he was Jester is scummy. A towny and mafia would be equally likely to argue against a lynch of someone they think might be jester, because, again, that means they lose.Im just over here wondering how much longer you are going to keep operating as if it makes sense that players would operate against what is conducive to achieving their win con xD
I never said I wasn't to blame. I even said I'd take the full blame for lynching harder 1st and not Virt. And I argued that the harder defense on virt was scummy was because I believed that harder and virt were mafia together. If I didn't think that, I'd look at the Jester defense as null too.
Also I never said players will play against their wincon, but as scum there is a chance that they will 'slip'.
I blame XLAV less for him being insane cop, but he should have outed that result.
Wtf is up with these DP1 VTNLs?
Is this seriously becoming meta again?
It's null if they only did it a few times. It's starts becoming a scum tell once they keep redoing it. This is one the scum tells I made that FT caught me way back.
You linked to him disagreeing Parrot was town. Where was the extreme repetition? Again, null
But wait, didn't Virt and Smith just focused on set-up in DP2?I'm pretty sure there's more but I'm too lazy to search it.Scum will focus on set-up because it will make them look like they're analyzing the game, thus scum tell.So I don't understand the point you're trying to make here.
Ok, so the question becomes, why didnt you focus on Virt and Smith then? Obviously they were doing exactly what you would think scum would do, and yet... you go after Harder. Obviously even you dont actually think scum naturally will focus on set up. And i can point to multiple instances in this game of townies analyzing set-up. Set-up analysis isnt in itself a scum tell, its null. Its becomes a scum tell when that player starts acting as if that analysis is fact and/or that analysis doesnt quite jive with what they are trying to posit. For example, smithers saying a 7 player game would be best balanced by using 1 tp/ 1 mafia. When again, that doesnt make sense considering TP win cons had to be fundamentally altered to balance.
That's why they're called slips for a reason.
Analyzing set up is not the slip, analysis predicated upon knowledge a towny would not otherwise have, or predicated upon irrational premises, is what is the slip
The 'null tells' you're saying are null tells to you because you're the mod who already knows the affiliations of his players. That's confirmation bias..
no, the null tells are null tells because mafia and town are equally likely to do so. Again, you point out smithers and virt analyzed set up, therefore mafia analyzes set up more. But multiple townies in this game also analyzed set-up. So how can it be wholly indicative of being scum again? Particularly if townies are doing it just as much if not more?
Scum-tell = behavior that makes sense as most likely derived from being scum
Town-tell = behavior that makes sense as most likely derived from being town
null-tell = behavior that doesnt make sense as most likely derived from either of the above.
i've been pretty clear and concise in pointing out why these presented tells dont make sense as majoritively being derived from scum, rather, both town or scum are equally, or near equally likely to be doing it. A towny is not likely to present something as true unless absolutely sure. A scum is also not likely to present something as true unless they are sure it is true, or, alternatively, they feel they can get away with lying. But as you pointed out, analyzing set-up is alluring to mafia, because they can present analysis that makes it appear as if they are offering valuable analysis. But analyzing set-up is also alluring to town, because deducing likely set-ups helps narrow down potential truth of claims. The tell isnt in the action itself, the tell is in how the action is presented.
For example, Virt automatically assumed RM's inno was legit, despite a paranoid cop flipping, and rational himself stating he very easily could be naive. This was both assuming RM was town(which a towny wouldnt know), he even went so far as to say Rational was "confirmed" along with him. But also, this was belying knowledge of RM being town and thusly being truthful, which a towny would not otherwise know. RM completely lying as to being cop because of the paranoid flip, was also a distinct possibility that otherwise is hard to ignore.
For example, Virt automatically assumed RM's inno was legit, despite a paranoid cop flipping, and rational himself stating he very easily could be naive. This was both assuming RM was town(which a towny wouldnt know), he even went so far as to say Rational was "confirmed" along with him. But also, this was belying knowledge of RM being town and thusly being truthful, which a towny would not otherwise know. RM completely lying as to being cop because of the paranoid flip, was also a distinct possibility that otherwise is hard to ignore.
I think i see the disconnect here. You are holding actions as tells. When actions in and of themselves are not tells. The tells are in what those actions mean, how those actions are presented, how consistent those actions are with both past behavior and reasoning, but also consistent to reasoning supplied in game. For example in your FT example, i have little doubt he also pointed out that your rationale for refuting those reads was likely inconsistent across those refuations. For example holding A means someone is scum, but holding the opposite as not meaning they are town. This is inconsistency in application of rationale metrics, and belies that the person is solely looking to refute the TR's, and not actually analyse behaviors with consistent metrics so as to deduce potential scum, and potential town.
If (A) = mafia, and assuming (B) is the inverse of (A), then B must = town. However, if a player decides B =/= town. They just made themselves look super scummy, because they ignored what should otherwise be information that generates a TR. its not the refutation of TR's that is scummy in and of itself, its whether or not those metrics used to deduce, are being applied consistently so as to deduce not just whether or not someone is scum/not town, but also whether players are town. If (A) = scum tell, then there must be an inverse action that would generate a TR. For example:
Assume fluff posting is a scum-tell. Non fluff-posting therefore has to be a town tell. (in actuality fluff posting is only scummy if thats majoritively whats being done and the player is otherwise lacking analysis with substance, but this was more to illustrate the whole "consistency" thing.