WW 36 - Horrors in Kingsport [Game Thread]

[Jabbz]

You realize I was talking about his play to that point, right? You make it sound like I'm giving him a pass for the entire game

Yes, I caught that Saul, thank you.

What about the people who claim they are too busy to post much? Do they get a pass, or do they still face some suspicion for being quiet?

This sequence of Jabbz posts really tweaked me. (Only quoted the closing entry for brevity.) The four quick posts has a bit of the boost the post-count, nobody will remember on day 3 to it. And I really dislike appeal to authority questions like this, they're a newbish form of sucking up.

So as to the posts, I often do that. It helps me avoid huge walls of text *glares at Gaspar* which I find hard to keep track of. I am active enough that I don't need to fake it with posts, but thanks for your concern anyway. As to the second part, it was not an appeal to authority, nor do I give a shit about sucking up, I was making a joke. Given it's not uncommon for me to be absent periodically, it would be quite the problem if we held people accountable for that. Good work trying to paint me scum without anything to base it on though

Just out of curiousity Gaz, when he is acting scummy, why did you feel it necessary to throw him a lifeline?

I feel like this is a normal scum argument - OMG NO DEFENSES. Mostly because scum are a lot more sensitive to defending because they fear doing it.

I think it's an entirely reasonable question to ask. Gaz didn't have a problem with me asking. I didn't have a problem with his answer. Why are you making such a huge deal out of it?

[Jabbz]

Liked Zak's explanation-of-prior-posts post, at least relative to earlier presentation. I feel like this is a case of confirmation bias though. Lot's of posts fit SOME logic that could work for scum, but we looked really hard at Saul's for what I think was a dumb initial reason (mixing me up with someone). I just don't get why anyone thinks that blatant error of memory is more likely for a scum than a villager. Hell, I could rationalize it being even more likely for a villager, since a scum might be paranoid about misspeaking and bother to check.

Still don't like Jabbz even if I now think zak a bit more reasonable. Clear bandwagoning, starting with what I think is a very bad reaosn and then actually jumping on with a vote much later without providing ANY actual explanation besides his initial really short post about the slip up.

I'd repost it again, but I'm fairly certain you will ignore it again. I made an observation. You and he both jumped as if I'd stuck a flaming brand down your britches. You then went into hyper defensive mode. That made me change my vote from a 100% joke vote on Zak, to a 50% serious vote on Saul. Now its 100%, and you're next.

Jabbz simply said I'm the scummiest but doesn't give any reasoning. I can follow a plausible train of thought in novice's posts but I can't in Jabbz's,

Read the above. It's easier than retyping.

[Jabbz]

You're right that I'm rusty, though. I forgot how this dance went, but the steps are coming back to me:

1. Barely shake off early bandwagon
2. Nail a couple wolves
3. Get mislynched at the end, mostly on the grounds of the early bandwagon.

Nice to see the time apart hasn't changed anything

Look at the bright side. Given that framework, you don't have to worry about dying for a few days.

[zakalwe]

Sunrise, that first quote was a one-liner to quickly explain what I meant by formulaic. It's natural to include more nuance and some disclaimers when elaborating. I'm also not immune to strong conflicting opinions from Dtay and from Saul himself. I have no problem admitting that Saul could be innocent, and I really don't want to exaggerate the probability that he's scum. But at the moment I don't see any better cases, either.

I won't have much time for this today so my vote is likely to stay on Saul. Doesn't mean that I'm dead set on lynching him. I should have some time to reevaluate before the deadline.

[Mattimeo]

I don't see the link between the first two paragraphs and the actual vote. Is it a policy vote, or what? Fill me in, please.

Any policy that has its basis in "in lynch people who are more valuable to scum than town" is inevitably going to come down to "lynch all lurkers" at some point, as lurking are unequivocally more useful as scum than it is town. I also happen to be a pretty unashamed lurker until such point as there's any actual information to go on.
Thus, in the complete dearth of any actual reason to vote someone that is d1, a pre-emptive OMGUS vote is just as good as any other - better, even, because there's a (slim, incredibly flimsy) reasoning to it rather than being completely random.

This is the curse of day 1. Every time someone agrees with you, you instantly start questioning their motives.

...that's limited to d1?

but assume we'll see more of him when he wakes up in an hour or so.

Good luck with that
Wanted to do a bit more than just a "yes! I'm awake" while rushing to work, so you got put off to now. Not much point adding to 'activity' with pure spam.

Matt is a lurker as scum AND as town (at least in his last two games) so no tell there.

Excuse me, in the previous game, with both plentiful information available d1 and a very strong power role, I was solidly in the top 50% of posters before I was killed.

There doesn't have to be anything sinister about that.

The amount of work you're putting in to try to paint the post as suspicious kinda is. Sure, it can be read as a little formulaic - but it strikes me as exactly the type of post *anyone* would make, coming back halfway through d1 to find a wagon on themselves and trying to bead down the flames. Claiming this is a scum-specific reaction is claiming that only scum ever attempt to safe themselves from being lynched - which is not only false, but would lead to actively worse play if treated as true.
On the other hand, normally we don't see pushing this blatant from a scum-zak until much later in the game. So I'm not sure it's worth a vote at this time.

...in before showing up with sweet fuck-all to say, other than a defence of someone halfway on the block, and no real reason to vote for anyone (because, again, d1 in an apparently low power role game) starts the wagon on me back up
eh, sunrise for deliberately misconstruing my statements to the effect of "we keep things 'fair' because we like playing more games with the same people" as a malicious threat. Also OMGUS. The best reason ever to vote for someone, clearly.

[Gazglum]

*I didn't like dtay in post 96, for making cases and then not voting for any of them, but the change off his policy vote made in that post seemed genuine to me. So town point.

*Gazglum does a similar thing in 122, giving a reason to not vote for Saul and a reason to vote for Matt, but keeping his vote on the former. Interestingly he doesn't vote Matt because he wants to give him a chance to post more. This next vote? Me, for not posting enough...

I said that Saul's confusion of Dtay's identity didn't matter, but that calling Dtay aggressive did seem a mischaracterisation, and that Saul was still scummiest to me, hence me keeping my vote there.

As for Mattimeo, experience has taught me that he ignores pressure votes, so its more useful to spend that coin elsewhere.

[Rowain]

And what do you think about sunrise, Mattimeo and the doctor now gaz?

@Mattimeo:

Me thinks we had the discussion before. Your not posting gives the village no chance to judge you making any endgame including you extremely hard for the villagers present. If you are scum go on with your lurking but if you are town please try to give reads and opinions so we can get a read on you.
Else it is better to lynch you now and let players who actually allow us to get a read on them live on. Increases village-chances to find scum.

About reads:
judgement about the doctor pending.
townlean on zak and dtay.
I don't like novice 2 votes (the one on Qg and the one now on Doctor Saul).

[AdrienIer]

Matt is a lurker as scum AND as town (at least in his last two games) so no tell there.

Excuse me, in the previous game, with both plentiful information available d1 and a very strong power role, I was solidly in the top 50% of posters before I was killed.

Ah apparently you're right, I remembered going to sleep on the first day while you had only one post and thinking you were lurking again. But you started posting on the next day.
Does this mean you only lurk as scum then ?

Anyway now that you're up to a whooping 2 posts I'll try to look for an other case.
If anyone's ready to go with me on this I'm interested in Novice's posts : out of 6 posts really on the topic of finding scum, only posts 87 and 133 are more than one or two liners. So not a lot of analysis on his part. I don't really mind his attacks on my newbieness, the problem is that sticking to comments like "bad post by Q" or "actually Zak already answered that in that post" make you appear like you're doing something while making sure no one will attack you for bad logic or overreaction or whatever mistakes you can make by being more engaged in your reads.
If no one agrees with me I'll change my vote for something more useful and wait for more info on him.

[novice]

AdrienIer, it's just for minimizing thumbprints - On my mobile devices.

Was already planning AdrienIer for his newbscum impression (random selfvote, what I would do as scum post.)

[Rowain]

If no one agrees with me I'll change my vote for something more useful and wait for more info on him.

What do you consider as more useful?