Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ashersky]

Well, an official vote count would be best.

[ashersky]

Well, an official vote count would be best.

But I will say, I based my vote count on the last official one, which may be wrong.

[yuma]

When nothing was happening, I just quickly thought if there was anything.  I didn't remember anything, so I tried RVS.

that doesn't answer my question, or I am completely not understanding what you are saying here. In fact I really have no idea what you are saying here to begin with.

I am not talking about your trying RVSing yourself. I am asking why you thought my vote on TA and ash's vote on TA were RVS when they clearly weren't.

[Twistedarcher]

My scum philosophy it to act like town, even when it hurts.

This quote is basically why I'm voting Sudgy right now.

He said that "early wagons are for interactions". (#257) It sounds pro-town at first glance, but digging deeper, I don't think it is at all.

What's good are real interactions. Looking at why person X voted person Y, and their reasons for voting. What's bad is fake interactions, where someone can say "Oh, I just voted this person to get a wagon going". This kind of vote actually takes away from wagon analysis and interactions, because it's a built-in excuse for why someone joined in a wagon. It's tough to analyze someone who says "I joined this wagon to get an interaction going".

Sudgy also made the bolded stance of "ABSOLUTELY NO CLAIMS". (#140) This is something that once again, is an easy pro-town stance.

Finally, he voted Ash to see the reactions to his vote. (#257) He notes that this is something that Ashersky has done in the past to get reactions, and he was trying to imitate that play. He also makes sure to point this out to us when first asked. However, there have been no analysis of the reactions to his Ash vote. However, Sudgy made sure to explain exactly what he was doing.

Overall, I think Sudgy has been trying so far to act especially towny. As he said himself, that's exactly what he would try to do as scum.

[Twistedarcher]

Just so you guys know, I wasn't even thinking of trying to play like ash.

Oh really. But you said:

My ash vote was still RVS, I was just trying to make it look like it wasn't to get reactions.  That's how ash always plays.  And I was trying to get RVS going because we were kind of done talking theory and nothing else was going on.

[nkirbit]

vote: sudgy

[ashersky]

Back to vote: sudgy

[ashersky]

Is that 4 or 5 on sudgy?

We have me, nkirbit, TA, yuma...anyone else?

[sudgy]

When nothing was happening, I just quickly thought if there was anything.  I didn't remember anything, so I tried RVS.

that doesn't answer my question, or I am completely not understanding what you are saying here. In fact I really have no idea what you are saying here to begin with.

I am not talking about your trying RVSing yourself. I am asking why you thought my vote on TA and ash's vote on TA were RVS when they clearly weren't.

It perfectly answered what you said.  I just quickly thought of anything in the game that I could remember, didn't think of anything, and RVSed.  I didn't think about specific cases, like TA.

My scum philosophy it to act like town, even when it hurts.

This quote is basically why I'm voting Sudgy right now.

He said that "early wagons are for interactions". (#257) It sounds pro-town at first glance, but digging deeper, I don't think it is at all.

What's good are real interactions. Looking at why person X voted person Y, and their reasons for voting. What's bad is fake interactions, where someone can say "Oh, I just voted this person to get a wagon going". This kind of vote actually takes away from wagon analysis and interactions, because it's a built-in excuse for why someone joined in a wagon. It's tough to analyze someone who says "I joined this wagon to get an interaction going".

Sudgy also made the bolded stance of "ABSOLUTELY NO CLAIMS". (#140) This is something that once again, is an easy pro-town stance.

Finally, he voted Ash to see the reactions to his vote. (#257) He notes that this is something that Ashersky has done in the past to get reactions, and he was trying to imitate that play. He also makes sure to point this out to us when first asked. However, there have been no analysis of the reactions to his Ash vote. However, Sudgy made sure to explain exactly what he was doing.

Overall, I think Sudgy has been trying so far to act especially towny. As he said himself, that's exactly what he would try to do as scum.

I haven't been trying to be towny, I'm just being me.

Just so you guys know, I wasn't even thinking of trying to play like ash.

Oh really. But you said:

My ash vote was still RVS, I was just trying to make it look like it wasn't to get reactions.  That's how ash always plays.  And I was trying to get RVS going because we were kind of done talking theory and nothing else was going on.

When I said "That's how ash always plays" I was saying, "I wouldn't vote ash over what he did since he always does that."

vote: sudgy

And can you explain this?

PPE: And ash too.

[Twistedarcher]

Are the votes you guys sheeping my case, or what?

[ashersky]

TA, I voted for Sudgy before you.

In fact, I think I was the first one to vote for sudgy and make the case that he was doing scummy things.

[Twistedarcher]

Understood on the point about voting Ash, I misunderstood. But that's really the best defense you have to the rest of it?

[ashersky]

Nope, I was wrong, I guess I was talking about someone else, or some other game.

I voted sudgy for trying to pull an ash.

[Twistedarcher]

TA, I voted for Sudgy before you.

In fact, I think I was the first one to vote for sudgy and make the case that he was doing scummy things.

Nope, early game it was Me, Yuma, you. But do you agree with my points is what I'm asking, do you?

[Twistedarcher]

Crazy. Exact same time stamp. I didn't even get a PPE for your post, either. Weird.

[ashersky]

TA, I voted for Sudgy before you.

In fact, I think I was the first one to vote for sudgy and make the case that he was doing scummy things.

Nope, early game it was Me, Yuma, you. But do you agree with my points is what I'm asking, do you?

Oh, I mean yes, I agree with points against sudgy brought up by everyone.  The points are there.

I think it was sudgy realizing his own meta, changing it in a crazy way on purpose, and being caught.  Good scum try, but didn't work out.

Crazy. Exact same time stamp. I didn't even get a PPE for your post, either. Weird.

I did not either.

[sudgy]

Understood on the point about voting Ash, I misunderstood. But that's really the best defense you have to the rest of it?

Is that really the best case you can make on me?

And I'm generally not that good at defending myself anyway.

[ashersky]

Understood on the point about voting Ash, I misunderstood. But that's really the best defense you have to the rest of it?

Is that really the best case you can make on me?

And I'm generally not that good at defending myself anyway.

This sounds like scum talking.  So very unlike normal town sudgy.

[Twistedarcher]

Understood on the point about voting Ash, I misunderstood. But that's really the best defense you have to the rest of it?

Is that really the best case you can make on me?

And I'm generally not that good at defending myself anyway.

I'm happy to add this post to the case.

[ashersky]

By the way, TA is either bussing or town.

I know I had a scum read earlier, but recent posts have me changing my read no him to this.

[theorel]

@Voltaire: it was me that stated this was false.   Here it is again, because it's still false...this is never a safe claim for ash to make.  I'm a bit wary, because his tracker claim in Mean Girls wasn't safe either, right?  Someone in that game can confirm, but I think he would have been outed even if mcmc hadn't flipped jailkeeper?  I wouldn't put it past ash to make really out there claims as scum, but I'd expect him to get himself lynched relatively early in that case.

Multiple people have made posts like this, but I want to re-iterate that this is simply untrue.

If Ashersky were on a mafia team of two members, he knows, 100% of the time, there is no 1-shot doctor in the game.  This is because there would be at least 5 T's in the game, leaving only two town PR rolls.  One of them was an "M" to make Galzria an IC.  There's only one more letter, which isn't enough to make a potential 1-shot doctor who would counterclaim Ashersky.

I bring this up again because people seem to be considering Ash's claim as 100% town, or at least a dangerous claim for scum to make.  In certain cases, it is a perfectly safe claim to make, and I think everyone should keep that in mind.

I don't think we should at all lynch Ash today, but I think everyone is giving him far too much town credit for his claim.

The only way this happens is if there is a SK, something scum-ash would not know.  If the game goes to 6 (or 5) players with no scum lynched (and no SK), and we're still playing, guess what...ash lied!  It's guaranteed at that point.  Because we will know at some point before the game ends whether there are 3 or 2 scum.  Therefore in 50% of cases he's found out.

That means that at best ash has a 50% chance of being unprovable.  And even then it requires that the SK stays alive until lylo, so that it is feasible that the game is still going on because the SK is alive.  It gets him to lylo, not past.  A claim which is only good until lylo is a bad claim.  A very very bad claim.  Because if it goes to 2v1, and the 1 is ash, town wins (because we'd expect not to be in lylo at that point, we would expect to have ALREADY LOST).

I think there is absolutely no reason to expect a scum-team of size 2.  If ash is lying and scum, the scum-team is 3 people.  If ash is telling the truth and town, the scum-team is 3 people.  That's it, that's all the possibilities.

Okay, I need to look back over this sudgy thing.

[theorel]

Okay, so here's the sudgy case (and defense) as far as I understand it:
1. sudgy non-RVS voted ash in the middle of his RVS.
DEFENSE: It was for reactions, he didn't really mean the case on ash.
1.a. That doesn't really make sense, because he didn't search out reactions.  Also (added by me) he jumped straight back into RVS when he got the reactions (which was votes on him).  He never pursued any results on his reactions for his bad case.

2. sudgy was trying to be like ash, but said he wasn't.
DEFENSE: misunderstood.  He meant that he didn't mean the case.  (This is sufficiently reasonable to my mind)

3. sudgy disrupted the transition out of RVS with more RVS.  (i.e. the TA votes at this time were non-RVS).
DEFENSE: He did not realize the TA votes were non-RVS.  By which he meant, he just thought back, didn't remember any non-RVS stuff, and went ahead and voted.  (This seems fair to me again, because I didn't remember them myself.  The sudgy-wagon is the first non-RVS activity that I remember...that doesn't mean it didn't happen, just that it wasn't memorable).

4. sudgy is trying to act towny, which is what he would do as scum.  (this is TA's case I think?  This is ridiculous to me, that's also presumably what he'd do as town.  He's pointing out pro-town things, which he has stated is what he would do as town or scum.  This isn't a case, basically at all).
DEFENSE: "sudgy isn't good at defending himself".  (Odd that this is the one he has trouble with.  I mean seriously, someone points out pro-town things and says, "looks scummy for being pro-town"...and that's when he starts having trouble defending himself?)

5. sudgy seems to be forcing a meta-change, which is usually scummy.
DEFENSE: none offered yet, he hasn't posted since the accusation.

1 seems strongest to me.  5 is potentially strong, though I don't have a good feel for sudgy's meta at this time to verify it.  4 is weird, and is what caused me confusion in this whole thing.  The case is super-weak, but he can't defend it.  It felt sooo weak to me, that I couldn't see how it was the basis for this renewed push on sudgy.  Maybe the renewed push has more to do with 2 and 3, and it took him so long to answer those points, that 4 just kind of slipped in?

I'm gonna sleep on this.  I'm going back and forth here.  I can see a slipping town becoming persecuted...I can also see a scum error becoming out-of-control situation.  I'm leaning slipping town, because it seems like it's happened so many times...

In other news, I don't get nkirbit's vote here.  It's a complete switch from everything here is null to a vote with no explanation. 

[Twistedarcher]

Theorel, Sudgy is making an effort to seem towny, but he's not making an effort to scumhunt. Several times already he has taken stances that offer nothing other than setting him on the "pro-town" side of an issue. It's not that he's doing pro-town actions (and he's not, his "creating interactions" is not actually pro-town), but that I feel he's making a concerted effort to appear pro-town.

[Voltaire]

If the scum-team was me/yuma/Robz, it kills your "2-man scum team ashersky awesome fakeclaim" theory.

Also, we would win.

I forgot I was playing with the MAFIA GOD.

I willing to vote sudgy but don't want to right now since there seems to be confusion about where the votes are. I find the consensus case against him compelling.

[nkirbit]

I find Sudgy contradicting what he said earlier to be scummy.

Theorel, I don't understand what you're talking about with regards to the SK.  If Ash is on a scumteam of two, he knows, 100%, that 1-shot doctor is a fake claim.  Whether or not there is a SK.  Every single time.  Give me a setup that has a two man scum-team that has a one-shot doctor in it and I'll be forced to admit I have absolutely no clue how this set up works, but as far as I can tell, there is no such setup.

I'm not saying that Ash is scum.  I don't think he is.  But he's far from an IC.