Why don't you have an opinion on me Jan?

 

So first, talking about the Jarizok-Rubicon interactions.

That was something I've already read through, and it didn't stand out to me in any way whatsoever when I first read through it. I'd wager that, when you read through it, it didn't stand out in any way whatsoever or else you would have noted it yourself instead of just agreeing with Newcomb brought it up. I think the point that Newcomb was making was that it seemed unnatural for them to mutually scumread each other and then move on, but I think that it was a point he oversold at the time - it loses a lot of its validity if one person is town - but the other point is that it's pretty early in the game at this point and obviously not based on much (and so it's not likely to be scumreads they feel strongly enough) so feeling it for a moment and then dropping it later isn't something that seems unreasonable at all to me.

---------- Post automerged at 06:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:16 PM ----------

The scumreads that I have gotten on her have been reliable so far, but she's been able to slip past me as scum a couple of times. I don't think she's read me incorrectly for about... 5 years?

 

I do.

I had a soft townread on you early d1 because of mostly mindmeld stuff.

Around EoD I was in a weird spot where I started to townread almost everyone.

Pressed the resetbutton today. Have a lot of townreads that I feel really good about, you are not one of them.

Does not make you scum, and I can respect the fact that you did try to keep the game going when it got really slow today.
Scum are more likely to let it fall asleep, because it is good for them, but you had some pressure from the start of today, which means you might have felt pressured to be somewhat towny.

I am just very split on you. But I think if you are town then you are a useful asset and might be a better copcheck for that reason.
Cobalt on the other hand is a waste of space either way.

 

Sure, sure. But like we don't actually need the money? We're never getting cop today, right? Not happening.

That leaves doc. We probably get it with a full bid, because if we don't they're out of 500 bids. If we lynch Cobalt and he's town, we lose zero full bids out of <redacted>. If we lynch Rubicon and he's town, we lose one full bid out of <redacted>. This is not a serious issue, because it will not come up unless town is miserably dumb with their money.

If Cobalt is scum, he has enough remaining to take away one item. If Rubicon is scum, he has enough to take away one item. Whoever chases doc should bid more than 300, but probably shouldn't spend 500 because of how the money works.

This argument doesn't appear to go anywhere.

I have literally no clue how to convince someone to vote for who I want, so just know I vigorously encourage you to vote Rubicon.

---------- Post automerged at 06:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:28 PM ----------
Jan pinging after your last post to say there is no world where we get a cop check.

---------- Post automerged at 06:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:28 PM ----------

You're right, it didn't ping me on the first read through, particularly. Do you disagree with his point that it reads unnaturally after it's pointed out, though?

This interaction (none of the interactions I quoted, to be perfectly frank) is/are compellingly "look how super obviously scummy this guy is". The point is that together they characterize a playstyle that is scummy. Big picture perspective, etc.

The claim is that Rubicon played D1 in a way that indicated that he tried to avoid drawing attention to himself. He quietly avoided the spotlight, had no controversy and made no serious pushes. In concert with the placating way he approached things, the lowish D1 post count, the terrible positioning and way he joined the tom wagon, and some incidental tom interactions, he looked terrible after D1. D2 is tainted in a sense because he was under fire from the word go.

Dude is just scummy to me. Obviously.

 

To the second point of "Rubicon lets go of things too quickly", I'm afraid I really don't see your overall point at all.

The two exchanges you highlight are one where you say that he's pushing a too scummy to be scum when the point that he's pushing seems to be too risky to be scum (and there's absolutely a distinction - too scummy to be scum is what dumbasses push as reasoning while too risky to be scum looks at the risk/reward of certain moves and is absolutely an acceptable way of determining mindset) - he drops it when you drop it because it was something that you initiated in the first place. There's no reason for him to pitch a big fit at a townread misunderstanding something that he said.

The other exchange is one with Newcomb where he asks Newcomb why Newcomb has a perspective on something, Newcomb has a reasonable answer, Rubicon accepts it. Why should Rubicon keep pushing Newcomb for that? Why Rubicon have a response other than what he did?

 

It's not something that works as individual points, really. It's...

Actually, ehh. We're clearly not going to agree right now, and I'm clearly not getting my lynch today. My argument is mostly outlined in my last response. I'll reproduce it here.

I'll consider your points over the night and we can talk about them if I'm still alive, so feel free to keep giving thoughts, but this is kinda where I am.

 

I get the big picture perspective but a bunch of ill-fitting pieces means that the big picture perspective probably isn't valid, obviously can't read the whole game and give a better judgment on the case on a whole but that's where I am now.

 

I think the heart of the disagreement is that I would characterize the pieces as less ill-fitting and more not compelling of their own accord. The point isn't that Rubicon was unreasonable - I actually use the word reasinable in my case multiple times iirc. It's more that he was passive - he only responded to prods as much as he was obligated to, and all of his prods felt exceedingly safe.

But yeah, no way we're hashing this out in an hour and fifty minutes.

---------- Post automerged at 07:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:10 PM ----------

Lol, thanks autocorrect. Rubicon is resinable as he'll.

---------- Post automerged at 07:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:11 PM ----------

Well, you just can't make that up.

 

In particular it's certainly not happening when I'm not even at home anymore; I'll be checking in to push a Cobalt lunch if it looks like it's not going through but otherwise I'm pretty much gone for the day.

 

Legacy post, while I'm thinking about it:

Obviously I think Rubicon should die if Cobalt flips town. If Cobalt flips scum, keep an eye on Rubicon still but he's /probably/ okay.

If Cobalt is scum and Rubicon is town... Ehh. Idk. I'll consider it overnight, I've left my PC. Offhand, I find it fairly hard to believe that neither of tom's partners voted him, so that makes it Vira or Fluff. In that world, it's probably Fluff. Two scum lurkers is a bitch, but it's not impossible.

If Rubicon is scum, look hard at Nacho. He's probably the best scum player in this game, so take care not to drink the koolaid. My jumping off point for that us D1 voting patterns. It sounds vaguely silly that they'd vote together like that and Nacho will point that out, but it looks a lot worse in the D1 Final VC than it did for most of the day - they got stranded a bit.

If Rubicon is town, look hard at Koalas. Basically for the same reasons I outlined earlier in D2.

 

Vote: Cobalt

 

So Nacho if I'm reading this right you're saying that the case on Rubicon is weak circumstantial and even less conclusive on account of the multiple inactive slots?

 

The multiple inactive slots don't have anything to do with why I think the case is weak.

---------- Post automerged at 07:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:32 PM ----------

Multiple inactive slots just make me less inclined to want to lynch him when I haven't really read up.

---------- Post automerged at 07:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:33 PM ----------

Why move from voting me to the person I'm trying to lynch?

 

There's something to be said for dismissing a big picture case without being read up but that's an issue for toMorrow.

 

I think Newcomb/Typhon and I have very different styles when it comes to explaining ourselves. They both try to explain their thought process in (sometimes excrutiating) detail to help others read them better.

I prefer to be concise and save my focus for when it counts, and I have trouble giving a shit whether people know what I'm thinking until I see something important (like the interactions that make Jarizok town). This can make me seem mysterious early on, but I always end up posting a lot of solve-y posts as the game progresses so in practice it doesn't make me any harder to read.

When Newcomb asked me to "Delve a bit" into why I called his post reasonable, he probably wanted me to write something like:

"Newcomb, your initial post seemed to be making leaps of logic I couldn't follow. I was concerned that you were making stuff up. It now seems clear that you aren't making stuff up, since your catch-up posts are well outside your scum range. This clarification about Vira caring about how she appears makes sense as something you would believe - even though I'm not convinced by it myself. The post you're talking about is so short that it would be easy to read something into it that's not there. On the other hand, I am starting to scumread her myself for unrelated reasons, so you may be correct - or right for the wrong reasons."
​

That would have been an accurate and detailed summary of my thoughts at the time, and probably made them both feel better about me. It's just not how I play.

 

Why is it an issue for tomorrow? Surely two hours or however long we have is enough time for you to explain why the approach I'm taking to the Rubicon case (I can't address the big picture case thus responding to the pieces). I also fail to see why addressing the pieces is a bad way to approach the case overall - do you think the examples he presented have nothing to do with the case as a whole?

 

This is your friendly neighborhood Typhon, dropping by to point out that the full Nacho wagon has now joined the Cobalt wagon he's leading.

 

Why do you suppose that happened?

 

Honest answer? I think about 3 (maybe four - Koalas has been around some) people are engaged in this game, and I'm relatively suspicious that two of the non-me parties are the scum team. I think Fluff and Jarizok honestly just haven't considered what they've done or why it's awful. Or don't really care.

I also think that it's probably the height of arrogance to think that I can divine town/scum out of a mire of inactivity, but I have no clue what else to do.

 

Jesus Christ, you guys.

I’m on board with this idea, but the time this post was posted makes me lean away in distrust. Seems bandwagon-y. Don’t you betray me, Kalas.

And you think Cobalt with his like six posts will give more flip information than Rubicon? What happens if Cobalt flips town?

I thought you believed in Rubicon/Jari? Why go for Cobalt now?

Marry me.

Has no one learned this from my case on Typhon?

That is certainly the worst reason to vote.

You people are lynching Cobalt out of inactivity. Fluff’s been inactive too and he’s way more suspicious if we’re going that route.

We aren’t lynching lurkers so to enjoy an active game, we’re lynching to win. And Cobalt isn’t a winning lynch. He flips town and boom, we’re back at the start. We get nothing from his flip unless we’re in an awful world where scum!Cobalt lurks out the game without asking for a replacement, therefore screwing over his partners.

I'm not lynching Cobalt.