Total posts: 3,178
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
No, its both of roberts weapons, and grahfs. Don't need or want any of my weaps silvered.
Created:
-->
@Vaarka
On one hand you just sus'd me for what requires a hyper-literal interpretation of one of my posts in isolation, on the other you are defending Supa for motives he by consequence of his attempt at excusing his percieved lazy voting, refuted? While at the same time
Ur gonna have to excuse me if i look at that and think it's sus in its inconsistency in scope of intepretation and in how you are affording one very little benefit of the doubt, and the other are giving it, not for anything actually done or said, but rather a stretch of a potential in which you never even examined the very thing that potential is hingent upon?
Mental gymnastics basically, while you immediately jumped to "that looks sus" in ur questioning of me.
Created:
-->
@Vaarka
Not to mention, there is no post anywhere between Aporias vote, and Supas post, that at all even hints to me having claimed.
Secondly, wow
My BS detector didn't go off because I haven't looked at page one since I first read it
Then how are you even holding your theory to be at all accurate, when knowing whether or not there was a post that hinted i had claimed in the space of time between Aporias vote and Supas post, is crucial to that theory even being valid?
Bruh, are you trying to make yourself look like Supas scumbuddy?
Created:
-->
@Vaarka
My only guess for this is he based his original reasoning off of a post later where someone talked about the vote. Otherwise you're right, poor logic.
You are stopping your thought process on this short. He cp/d Aporias vote and said he thought it, as in the vote itself that he c/p'd, was "for claim" as in for something i had claimed. He literally explicitly stated his misunderstanding" was based off of that vote.
You can't just ascribe motives to actions that have been explicitly refuted as a consequence of answers/excuses made by the person ur trying to ascribe those motives to themselves.
Created:
-->
@Vaarka
You are asking me why I'm removing my vote, as its clear you think me moving to other reads is suspicious. To hold that as suspicious would require
1) ignoring other reads, especially on D1, and instead tunneling a scum read is the "pro-town" play. And so not doing so is inherently suspect.
AND/OR
2) it is my meta to behave in such a manner, especially on D1. So me unvoting and voting Wylted, another SR at the time of voting, was not in line with my usual behavior.
When you ask questions those questions have implications whether you like it or not. I'm asking you to establish the core reasons why you even think the behavior is sus, and obviously you do, else you wouldn't be asking me why I unvoted Supa.
If you think I've stopped SR'ing him, what about my numerous posts since then detailing why he's scummy would lead you to think that?
Created:
-->
@Vaarka
A post that is unbelievable they would not see is the very first. Especially given they both gave an analysis on why they agreed with the RVS strat Aporia outlined, and also c/p'd from when relaying the aforementioned "misunderstandings"
Misunderstandings... righhhhhhhht /s
Created:
-->
@Vaarka
No, Supa claimed he thought Aporias vote was to Lynch. As to why he VTL'd aporia, and thus he wanted to see his reasoning.
This requires we assume Supa both hasn't picked up on RVS votes not being for lynch, AND thought the first post of a game was for a lynch
this vote for a lynch as opposed to a claim as Supa is saying he did not realize, was, again as Supa stated himself, because he thought I had claimed previous to Aporias vote. Aporias vote was the first of the game...
His excuse of "I said "where is buddas claim" because I thought he had claimed, wherein he actually links Aporias vote, FROM THE FIRST POST OF THE GAME" and says, "oh I misunderstood "vtl budda for claim" as meaning budda had claimed something, so Aporia was voting him for death.
On the first post of the game, a post he c/p'd from and responded to twice. To hold Supa as being truthful requires we hold he still doesn't understand the nature of RVS votes(when it has come up in games hes played in, and he specifically has been corrected on this assumption of RVS votes = to lynch. But also that he legitimately thought I had claimed previous to the first post of the game. The first is a stretch, the second is just unbelievable.
I'm not sure how your bs detector hasn't been set off by this. Are you really that gullible to believe someone legitimately thought a VTL on the first player post of a game was both to lynch, and for something i had claimed?
Created:
-->
@Vaarka
Sure, first please explain how tunneling someone I think is prob scum 1 claim into D1 is beneficial? Also, where have I established in my meta that thats what I do?
Created:
-->
@Vader
He said I can't scum read Aporia and disagree about what he said, then come out and agree with his logic. He made a post in Part 7 where he explains his logic. Ill link it
That's not even what I said. Lord post 178#
Actually, the more that I think about it, the more I think Supa is selling poor town play way too hard. If we're to hold his defense as truthful and him not sus by consequence, requires that he saw ur vote for me, but somehow thought you were voting me for what i had claimed, when your post was the very first post of the game(excluding the OP).Beyond that, to also have us hold, that hes played in a few games already, and is still percieving RVS votes as being for death by default, when not a damn RVS vote in any game ive played with him has been for a lynch, its always been for a claim. And this same issue has come up as well.I'm just saying, "I thought you were voting him because of his claim", when it was the first post of the game? That's just not believable fmpov.
You are pinpointing me saying it doesn't make sense to me that you would agree with Aporia's reasoning, them turn around and say it was shitty logic.
You are selling poor play way too hard. "I thought you were voting budda because of something he claimed"
On the first post of the game.
"Aporias logic is crap being for a lynch"
Which would require you to think the first vote of a game was to lynch, and would require us to believe, beyond that, that after how many games you are still assuming votes during RVS are to lynch. When not a single RVS vote during the games you've played recently has been for a lynch, you having made these same assumption as well as others during these games,
To hold you as truthful and towntdoesn't just require we hold you havent absorbed that votes during the random voting stage are prerty much never for lynches. But also that you were seriously contemplating Aporia was voting me for something I had claimed, when Aporia vote on me was the first vote of the game. So we have to hold that you could legitimately think there exists posts before post #1(excluding OP as it's not a player post.)
No, I find it likelier you knew he wanted my claim, and when you got called out on lazy posting played the, "no guys, I'm not scum, I'm just bad" card. But you sold the play way too hard, cause it requires we believe you misunderstood multiple things that are well beyond the line of a reasonable misunderstanding.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Created:
-->
@Wylted
Im sorry you are struggling with that burden. I don't hold it against you that you had to dip, never did.
_______________
I hope you dont take it personally that I cant assume you are being truthful about not remembering. And so can't fmpov operate as if the post wasn't potentially contrived.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's far more likely wylted genuinely did not know how scum pm works for 2 reasons.1) this is wylted's 1st mafia game on DART2) It came toward the middle of a bloviating dayphase where a contrived statement would have a minimal effect compared to early in the day where everyone would have immediately noticed it.
Eh, no, but you don't realize that he already knows there are known and easy alternatives. Wylted was originally scum in beginners 1.1. I supplied him the chatzy link. He ultimately never played. Maybe he never read the messages upon returning from his absence, but idk, Wylted has never struck me as a "leave messages unread" kinda person. Although it's possible he did.
The reasoning you gave was actually pretty solid fmpov, but it's hingent upon him not knowing there are alternatives to it. He prolly does and likely would have fmpov even independent of the aforementioned messages.
Created:
-->
@Aporia
I honestly did not think voting Budda would devolve into 100+ posts debating the validity of pressuring experienced players over newbs.
Oh man, then you aren't remembering me accurately 😂
Created:
-->
@Wylted
FT's mafia related debate wasn't even about the noob rule. He tied with Mestari(Lucky_Liciano).
That it was Lucky(Mestari) that tied with FT is actually kinda epic. Mestari actually did do that at least a couple times if I recall 😂.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
Danielle is a way better debater than I am and made the case far better than I ever could 😂
Created:
-->
@Wylted
You remember that I was in a debate about the noob rule that I lost, but it was between pressuring inactives and noobs.
The noon v experienced debate was long before i was even a site member. Lol I forgot about that, remember that it was constantly referenced when these kinds of debates started up in games.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
It is an easily contrived question, but I like greyparrot's response.
Because? it was shallow analysis. Those kinds of posts are easily contrived. You just puffed yourself up, you really expect the town reaction is going to be, "nope, certainly no way Wylted is clever enough to contrive that. Must have been a town tell."
My dude, you can't have it both ways here.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
Also, leaving outs for any analysis of your reads to be inapplicable, just looks sus
When you pressure a noob during RVS, it is extremely rare for it to have good results.
No, it's not extremely rare. The first two games on this site started with noob pressure, and resulted in them ultimately being town read. Acting like pressuring noobs during RVS results in them being scum read and lynched more often than not is disjointed from reality.
Secondly, pressure or not, noob slips happen. And noob slips can break either way.
I'm trying to reconcile how were talking about RVS strats, but you are bringing up
They can feel like a few votes are serious pressure and release information they shouldn't.
Your reasoning against pressuring noobs is honestly majoritively "but noobs are generally bad and dont play well" when that's the point. They don't play well, as mafia or as town.
They're easy to read as scum anyway and when the claim doctor or cop at L3 or something it's usually bad.
Thats the damn point, that's exactly the point. They're easy to read, thus pressuring them will cause other players to generate reads, allowing for substantive analysis of those players, as well as analysis of the player being pressured.
You are positing it is optimal to not just pressure, but obviously to get claims(soft) from players one has difficulty gauging early on. I'm just curious how pressuring a hard to gauge player that is going to produce null and slight reads D1, is better than pressuring players that will generate strong reads(and thus very substantive in terms of behavioral analysis) from involved players, when what's being discussed is what will progress the game past the RVS stage the quickest, and provide the most substantive analysis from all involved players.
Nothing precludes you from also pushing after RVS, getting a claim from a player because you find them hard to read. In fact that wouldnt even be an RVS vote anymore, because you are at that point establishing a position(that you have difficulty reading them) that can be examined for consistency later.
______________
Also, are you really gonna say "I'm not tunneling like I usually do" which is an analysis of my meta, and ignore the numerous times previous i lead ML's on you on DDO because of behavior like this? Like that doesn't give me a reason to maybe not hardcore tunnel you?
Good to see you still purposefully act scummy. I so have always enjoyed when people do that 😂.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
It’s usuallyindicative of affiliation, unless it’s me. You should also be scumreading warren. I don’t know why he thinks a bunch of people whohave played a lot of games with him, would believe he was a noob
He already came out and admitted it was contrived and that he was doing it as a reaction test. You assume I'm still TR'ing him at post #200 when this was posts roughly 50-75.
________________
I might thinkBuddamoose is good to target for reasons not pertaining to experience,
Then elaborating on them seems rather important? What were those reasons?
In this postbuddamoose pretends as if he doesn’t realize somebody can have ahigher than normal chance of band wagoning me and still not be amindless ape.
because "will generally bw" means they'll bw every time. I'm curious how you're concluding im not factoring probability when I specifically used a term that is exclusive to probabilistic statements.
This is ridiculous,besides the obvious reason that we don’t actually know who theopposing team is, it could be us attacking the rookie on our team
And with pressuring anyone based off anything you could be attacking the same team. Things that are applicable to both sides arent differentiators...
, itjust isn’t necessarily true of good strategy. Sometimes you attackthe strong corner because you have the best receiver in the league,and the rookie corner is also guarding a rookie. Or maybe the otherteam is playing Man with one corner but using the zone defense on theother side of the field which is tough to throw against particularlyif your quarterback is a rookie.
"We don't know who the opposing team is"
Now here's a bunch of counterexamples that require exactly that.
You do understand the purpose of the analogy wasn't the specific position, it was the players being rookies. And it was an observation of probability. The players most likely to belie their affiliation are rookies. Yes, there is a risk that they act scummy and get lynched. But that risk is present when pressuring any player...
Its absolutely true that town wouldn't know whether those rookies would be on their team and might pressure their own team. But that's equally true of pressuring experienced players, so how are you using it as a differentiator in harms/benefit comparison?
(Your whole section regarding bw'ing during RVS being optimal is true, i understand this. I just don't buy it as a motive because you were still in a position where placing a vote on someone you preferred urself wouldnt have derailed or stalled the DP.
You misunderstand, like Supa, the root issue with your behavior. Its not just that you bw'd onto Aporia. Its your read on Greyparrot. I don't buy that you bw'd Aporia for the sake of progressing the DP.
Now, either you think GP's idolization generally results in a bw, therefore him bw'ing isnt suspect and to be expected. Or you don't think his idolization generally results in a bw, so it's suspect and unexpected.
Given you think it isnt suspect, his idolization reasonably should result in him generally bw'ing you. So not bw'ing Aporia and instead voting a player of your preference would at least fmpov be attempted, than ceded without any attempt at controlling the direction of initial pressure.
This is not in line with narcissistic behavior(as you proclaimed to be yourself), and most of your other behavior, except this is in line with that. Like
It’s usuallyindicative of affiliation, unless it’s me.
In response to my sarcasm toward Warren, which you didn't pick up on and thought was serious, despite me calling out percieved contrivance as suspect previous to that. Well done
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
How about ask about my claim? Why I did it? Why I voted for whom? How about ask a question on any of 100 things instead of a big grand total of ZERO after 184 posts??
No, because you doing so was if anything indicative of you being town because in US states you came out and claimed right away too. I dont count beginner 1.1 cause you replaced in, but 1.2 as scum, and bloodline as scum you avoided claiming.
You literally just said I know ur meta and ur getting salty because I'm using that meta? Cut me some slack here Acosta 😂
This is totally not you normally.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
This is the really weird behavior I got from Buddha's behavior so far. So far he has spearheaded a soft defense of me... without asking me a single question, unlike wylted, vaarka, warren, and spinko.
Right after that he attempts to form a "town block" on post #76 with aporia and warren.... with really lame reasoning from post #70. Warren enters the game at post #40. Buddha claims Warren is town from post #40, a simple intro post, on post #51. And as Spinko correctly said, warren is far from new, yet Buddha labels him as a new player as an excuse to put him into his convenient town pile for a quick "town bloc" post on #76.
This isnt even an accurate recounting of events. You literally just fake news'd this recounting of events 😂.
Post #51 was before Spinko let it be known Warren wasn't new. Once he did I pointed out his post could be nothing but manufactured in post 57. He then claims it was a reaction test in post #65, and my TR was re-established and town-bloc was post #76.
Post #63 is the middle post where ive clearly rescinded the town read and wanted elaboration on what Spinko stated in post #54
One of them is debateable, the other is a position that requires ignoring that there is an RVS stage in every game... and so of course its reasonable a player could have played in multiple games and still think votes during RVS are both scummy and with the purpose of lynching.Theres "bad" play, and then there's this. This would be so awful that you would have to assume the player is entirely oblivious and is mentally incapable of absorbing SoP's that are present in every game.Do you have links to the games he's played in? Or at least the name so i can pull them up via the DDO archive? Maybe he is truly that oblivious.
That final paragraph was because of post #58 where Spinko stated
I've only played a few games with Warren and based off of my experience with him I dont think his post is contrived.
_________________
Are you really that salty because I don't care about you opening with a bw and claiming to have a useless role that ur gonna fake news me Acosta?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Bruh you opened by bw'ing like you have done in I'm pretty sure every recent game but beginners 1.1. What did you expect i would ask?
"Hey, why are you opening the same way you usually do?"
Created:
-->
@ArgentTongue
Also, when those later discussions explicitly discussed RVS strategy and benefits/harms of respective strats, and only reinforced his initial vote placement was to generate content/get me to claim.
Post #45 which came after a string of posts having a SoP argument, (21, 41, 42)
you said it yerself that the point of RVS is to generate discussion and content
________________
Where at all did he implicate suspicions? The very first post he gave a gauge of my affiliation was to say i was coming across as town.
Post #53
Yer a mostly null read rn but I'm starting to lean town
Created:
-->
@ArgentTongue
Oh, That makes sense. However, he made some more implications later on in your discourse.
Ok that's great, and what does that have to do with the motive behind placing the vote?
Created:
-->
@ArgentTongue
Correct me if I am mistaken, but you voted for him to either by lynched or investigated, which means you have suspicions regarding his affiliation
Usually this is correct, but his vote was during RVS, which usually means it doesn't imply suspicion, rather, it's necessary to get the game rolling and exit the "random voting stage".
How would a person have suspicions about anybody in the first post of the game?
Created:
-->
@Aporia
Actually, the more that I think about it, the more I think Supa is selling poor town play way too hard. If we're to hold his defense as truthful and him not sus by consequence, requires that he saw ur vote for me, but somehow thought you were voting me for what i had claimed, when your post was the very first post of the game(excluding the OP).
Beyond that, to also have us hold, that hes played in a few games already, and is still percieving RVS votes as being for death by default, when not a damn RVS vote in any game ive played with him has been for a lynch, its always been for a claim. And this same issue has come up as well.
I'm just saying, "I thought you were voting him because of his claim", when it was the first post of the game? That's just not believable fmpov.
Created:
Unvote
A quick wiki of Lwxanna shows she was only in a handful of episodes. My character is herself specific to season 7 and Lwxanna appeared in season 7, so I'm liable to think she could be a potential character in the game.
Does anybody else's role contain bsh1's personal disposition toward their character or others? It could just be specific to my character because they're one of a line of hosts for a symbiote and its basically along the lines of, "I didn't like you as much as the previous (actress), im bitter she was replaced and it sucked how she left so heres a crappy role 😂.
The word "oodles" was used unironically 😂, oodles.
Created:
-->
@Vader
So, to get this straight
-You agree with Aporia its beneficial to pressure experienced players during RVS, but think his logic for voting me is stupid, despite his reasoning being what you agreed with?
-its also scummy of other players to point out things that appear sus, like idk, saying you thought Aporias vote was to lynch and not get a claim, despite posting
Where is buddas claim?
Which look an awful lot like you knew he wanted my claim.
-And you it to be held you are still assuming RVS(opening) votes are for lynches, despite it being made clear in previous games thats not the case that you have been a part of where you have made such observations previously, to even hold your posts are genuine and not contrived.
And because those things aren't being believed, and I think they look suspect, this means I'm scum?
Nice
Created:
-->
@Aporia
You never asked for reasoning when you voted for me. Post 38 you ask where Budda's claim is and post 39 you randomly vote for me instead.
Post 38
Where is Budda claim
Post 39
I don't see it. Until then, VTL Aporia
Post 136
I asked for your reasoning on why you voted Budda
VTL Supadudz
Created:
-->
@warren42
Nvm, i initially reacted with a TR. Aporia then outted it was contrived, to which you said it's a reaction test.
My b, I was distracted, misremembered the order of events. So, because most people read you as a noob town in that game, when you were scum, you figured it would be useful as a reaction test? Which is why even though you realized you'd be outted, you acted like that anyways.
I'm still not following how thats low risk... That's guaranteeing you'll be viewed suspiciously, as contrivance of posts is suspect AF. So what do you mean by low risk? As it can't be low risk of being seen as suspect, unless your intent was to not get caught to begin with. Which in that case, how did you plan on justifying the reads gained off the test without explaining the test itself, and by consequence outting it was contrived?
Created:
-->
@warren42
Buddha I’ve said a few times that I thought the way you reacted to it was pretty town because
Uhhhhhh, that wasnt how i reacted to it hoss. I clearly was suspicious of you, but was focused on why Aporia was not jumping on you given they knew the post was entirely contrived.
Maybe I should have put a /s at the end of "how clever, not bad at all" but i figured it was obvious given i had just established previously that your behavior if contrived was scummy...
You’d want to keep as many musky chess as possible on the board.
if you were mafia you’d be less willing to give out such a quick town read.
But this presupposes what you did was clearly towny, when you illustrated you know it's not, because you've done so as scum. So upon what basis are you holding that TR'ing you = town and not TR'ing you = scum.
I get the feeling you didn't quite think this "reaction test" through...
Created:
-->
@Vader
I feel going after an experienced player would be more beneficial.
Because?
Killing the newb when he has no idea what he is doing does not only make the experience player look scummy
First off, RVS'ing the noob players is not to kill. Its to pressure, and that's the point, noobs don't know what they're doing. Initially targeting players that by virtue of being noobs will more often expose their affiliation, is playing to win the game. To win as town you need to lynch scum, to lynch scum you need to gauge the affiliation of involved players. This can only be done by producing activity and content. To produce this you pressure players. The point of RVS is to produce behavior that is indicative of affiliation as quickly as possible, to get out of RVS.
So to you, the most beneficial path to winning the game, the best path out of RVS, would be to target players whose affiliations will generally be more difficult to gauge?
Because nothing advances a game past RVS quite like tentative town reads and null reads.
Created:
-->
@warren42
I'm still waiting to see how this test actually got a reaction that would indicate affiliation...
all you've done is illustrate that you've done this as mafia before to gain people tr'ing you... not how this illicits reactions from players you can accurately gauge affiliation from.
Created:
What if I expected to get some easy townreads out of it?
So what if it was a reaction test, like you are claiming, and you were trying to get town reads out of it?
Why am i town reading you for acting town? Interesting question...
I feel like there's little to no risk involved. I don't think it's alignment indicative personally.
Faking posts isnt indicative of affiliation... and it's not risky... okay bud.
Created:
-->
@Vaarka
Can you just skip right to DP3 Vaarka and past the DP1-2 Vaarka that hovers in the background? ,😂
Created:
-->
@warren42
Can you re-explain why you still believe I'm town for fabricating that post? What about it could/would I not do as scum?
You could have, but it's that it would have been, and was, so easily exposed as fabricated. To actually contrive that post as scum, to view you as scum, would require me to think you would set yourself up for failure like that, in the very first post, regarding something that would be almost guaranteed to be exposed as faked.
Basically, i would almost have to assume you are mentally challenged to try that as scum. None of your posts are giving off that kind of impression, so the post reasonably fmpov only makes sense coming from a towny.
Created:
-->
@Aporia
Also, it wouldn't make sense not to jump on my vote for Budda if his vote was merely wagoning TO wagon
This couldnt of been his motive behind the flip. It doesn't make sense given the circumstances. You were the only one voting me, and he already showed one vote isnt sufficient to cause him to bw someone he disagrees with, as he opened with voting you.
If his voting motive was to establish a wagon ASAP then his first vote by consequence doesn't make sense. To hold his voting behavior is sensible would require you to hold it is sensible to vote with the clear motive of you being at the time an unknown quantity and him disagreeing with pressuring experienced players. But then turn right around and vote in a manner that is antithetical to that first clear motive.
Not sure how you can view that voting behavior and go, "well obviously his primary motive was to generate a wagon with no regard to whether he agrees with the wagon and whether or not that player is a known or unknown quantity.
I'm just saying dude, it's becoming pretty obvious your letting him bw'ing you affect how your viewing his behavior. I get it, you don't want to FoS someone who bw'd you because then they'll usually stop bw'ing you. But he's gonna stop anyways because he never agreed with your wagon to begin with. So once another wagon gains comparable steam, he's gonna abandon voting with you anyways, whether or not his motive is to generate a wagon ASAP, which doesn't make sense as a motive anyways.
Created:
Since when has GP ever idolized you?Wylted/GP scum team calling it now
The last two games ive played in with Vaarka his initial reads have been exactly like this. Drawing loose connections between players and calling out scum teams. This has me leaning town, but not at the point where I'd conclusively put him in the town pile, as such posts are easily fabricated. Its in line with his meta though, so that counts for something.
Created:
I think we're starting to establish a nice "town-bloc" here. Fmpov Aporia, Warren, and obviously myself are likely town. That's 3 down, and if all town a block is 1 away from holding over half the amount of votes needed to lynch.
Fmpov this has been a strong AF start to the game 🔥💯
Created:
-->
@warren42
Oooh, so that post was a reaction test? Gotta say, quite clever, not bad at all if trus. Given that the post is/was so easily exposed as only being sensible if fabricated, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on that.
I'm gonna still keep you in the town pile.
Created:
-->
@Aporia
Woops, i didn't see ur fleshed out reads post.
I need more info on Supa. His vote was lazy and contradictory. In one post he wonders why you havent claimed yet but precedes to lay pressure on me immediately thereafter. His play isnt beneficial in any way but I've never played with him so I dont know exactly what to make of it. He seems new so his anti-town play is mostly a null from me.
This is actually a very solid read, and I was mulling his vote over too, because it stood out. Basically, he belied he wanted my claim, but rather than put more pressure on me, he instead votes someone else.
Supa is def in the category of experienced, but still getting the ropes down when it comes to what is or is not pro/anti-town play. This is why I personally don't factor in pro-town / anti-town play in regards to inexperienced players, or those still familiarizing themselves with pro-town and anti-town behaviors.
The likelihood you see an anti-town action from such players increases exponentially and no longer becomes a solid indicator of affiliation.
You know what, I'm sticking you in the town pile for now. I like those reads, even if i disagree with some, illustrates genuine and careful analysis, very towny, very hard to fake. Especially with Dudz, as your sus, but seeking to explore his meta as opposed to jumping straight to, "sO aNtI-tOwN, hE mUsT be sCuM." Which would have been the opportunistic and easy read to make.
Created:
-->
@Aporia
I've only played a few games with Warren and based off of my experience with him I dont think his post is contrived.
Was there an RVS stage in the games he played? If yes, which there is almost always an RVS, are you really gonna posit now, games later, is the first time he's gonna posit that RVS votes are to lynch, and votes placed during RVS are therefore scummy?
That doesn't make sense, that kind of observation is a foundational observation that will dictate DP1 reads and be stated immediately, as evidenced by him making the observation in his first post.
There a large difference between positing experienced players are equal or easier to read than inexperienced. And positing that multiple games in, a person will not have yet encountered the concept of RVS and the votes contained therein.
One of them is debateable, the other is a position that requires ignoring that there is an RVS stage in every game... and so of course its reasonable a player could have played in multiple games and still think votes during RVS are both scummy and with the purpose of lynching.
Theres "bad" play, and then there's this. This would be so awful that you would have to assume the player is entirely oblivious and is mentally incapable of absorbing SoP's that are present in every game.
Do you have links to the games he's played in? Or at least the name so i can pull them up via the DDO archive? Maybe he is truly that oblivious.
Created:
-->
@Aporia
By reads i mean independent ones. The only "reads" you've given are in response to the ones I've given. On top of that, if you think im town, why are you still voting for me?
Remember, your vote was to try and gauge my affiliation. You already have by your own admission. Yet, your vote hasnt changed? Which would lead me to believe there is a motive present besides gauging my affiliation. Unless there's not, in which case, it circles right back around to, "why are you pressuring someone you think is town?
Created:
-->
@Aporia
Warren isnt new he just isnt good
So basically, he should already know RVS votes arent to lynch? Now, why aren't you pointing that out as a manufactured post then? If he's not new, he already knows, considering every game has an RVS, that RVS votes are not to lynch.
By my estimation you should be viewing that post as contrived and a scum tell based upon you knowing he's not new, just bad. But there is a difference between being bad, and positing a read that is 100% of the time exposed as unsound when it's made, and it is made often.
Created:
-->
@Aporia
On a final note, if the purpose of your pressure was to get me to produce content to gauge affiliation, congrats, the content has been produced. So where is your read. If you haven't been able to gauge it yet, how schocking, it's almost as if its harder to gauge experienced players affiliation.
Because 3+ lengthy posts later, you should reasonably have gauged my affiliation by now given inexperienced players generally belie their affiliation in that time period.
RVS is over, you got your content. So either you havent been able to gauge my affiliation, which proves my point. Or you think im scum, hence ur vote is still on me. In which case, please do elaborate upon that.
Go on hot shot, show us all how much easier it is to gauge experienced players affiliation rather than inexperienced players.
Created:
TR's- Warren
SR's- Wylted
Everyone else- currently null.
Created:
Quick question: Why are people voting for other people already? We still have plenty of time. I think people voting for other people to be lynched might be the mafia.
And almost as if to prove my point, here we have a new player, exposing they are town in the very first post they make. Mistaking RVS votes for votes to lynch, and thinking all those voting during RVS are likely scum, is textbook inexperienced town. At that point what, 5 players had voted? So to hold them as scum would require holding ratios are beyond the general maximum of 1/3 scum to town.
Like i said, you pressure inexperienced players because they will expose their affiliation more often than not quickly into producing content, and often times in the first post. Experienced players the opposite holds true, where it is more likely their affiliation remains ungaugable until much later in the game.
Created:
-->
@Aporia
Also, I'm curious, for someone who thinks gauging the affiliation of experienced players is equal to or lesser than the difficulty of gauging inexperienced players, where are ur reads? Its almost like already the results ur getting from the course of action aren't in line with your theory 👍.
Created:
On to his vote of you, you said it yerself that the point of RVS is to generate discussion and content so if that's one's goal than surely you can see that me pressuring you because yer experienced and him jumping on to just start sonewhere wouldn't require us to vote for different peeps
My first post:,
Normally during RVS flipping votes isn't that sus cause the point is to generate wagons to produce substantive content. But his flip couldn't of been motivated by that, as his vote was already on the largest wagon at the time
To further cement it not being a sensible motive behind the flip, you were the only vote on that wagon. Him voting what he would prefer, that being an "unknown quantity", would not be derailing a game during RVS. Your acting as if your wagon was already established as the lead wagon, when it wasn't the lead wagon...
2 wagons with 1 vote each during RVS, does not derail a game by a third person going, "neither of you two are pressuring smartly" and voting a different person. In fact, that is fmpov what a townie would do. Why? The goal of town is for town to control the direction of DP's. On DP1 one doesn't know who is or is not town, so if you see people placing votes you disagree with, as town you attempt to assert control and drive it in a direction you agree with because the only player one knows is conclusively town or strong town during RVS, is oneself.
Created:
-->
@Aporia
Its almost like you didn't read my post
On to his vote of you, you said it yerself that the point of RVS is to generate discussion and content so if that's one's goal than surely you can see that me pressuring you because yer experienced and him jumping on to just start sonewhere wouldn't require us to vote for different peeps
He unvoted me because
Him unvoting you has nothing to do with it. Like I said, its almost as if you didnt read my post and are just arguing against me because I'm pointing out your percieved optimal path in RVS is not consistent with experienced players being overwhelmingly generally better in any competition or sport.
As i said, if you are forming a gameplan in say football, you don't form a gameplan around attacking the cornerback that's a veteran and is considered a formidable corner, you go after the rookie, it simply put generates success far more often than going after that veteran who has seen it all before.
I can see yer point about ceding momentum and control kinda I guess but it's not standing out to me too much
And i would personally surmise this is most likely because he wagoned with you and you don't want to scum read him because that likely means he drops his vote from the wagon you tried starting.
Created: