Faerie Knight

##Vote: Junko I'm fine with this

also you don't know what your action might do at all? no pool of results it draws from? do you have limited shots?

also you don't know what your action might do at all? no pool of results it draws from? do you have limited shots?

why the hell not I check a player and get a color that corresponds to an alignment, but I don't know which unless a player I checked flips the meaning of the colors resets after every two checks, so if I had succeeded tonight, even if Junko would flip as town or whoever I checked (which would have been you) flipped as either town or scum, anyone else coming up with the same color doesn't mean they share that alignment. basically I need one flip from every pair for meaningful results but the motivator's dead, too bad, huh? so much for buying town a day where they didn't fuck up, at least I'm Sharena, don't think I can quote the flavor

good for you, please kill me next was blocked ofc, but Junko came up as green when I checked them n1 now hurry up and let me leave this mess

You know what? My motivation could not be lower. I wouldn't do this otherwise, and yes, I saw all the claiming, but to hell with this, might as well do it now before the likely hammer, I'm a Color Cop. I need at least another night to produce even some useful results, so if you're town, you probably want to give that a chance to happen. Only really interested in actually getting at least something out of my role for town, don't particularly care if anyone wants to kill me after and let me be done with this. I checked Junko so far if anyone cares before my results can mean anything. Let's see if I actually can have even a little fun helping this town win. Inb4 I'm RBed tho, but hey, at least I tried instead of just letting you kill me. mafia sucks

Is this addressed to me? I've cleared Mack because of EoD1, and townread Bartozio because he's given good reasoning and explanations for his actions and responded well to questioning. And do you have a problem with my having felt even more "non-commital" than he did there before the flip? I outright said I'd vote Micheaar simply because I'd pick him over Pika near EoD.

I have questions on someone's reads that make me doubt them, so I say that at that time, I wouldn't mind lynching them if those questions weren't answered satisfyingly, because I wouldn't mind lynching someone I have some suspicion on. But I didn't vote then because the wagon had already built fast and I didn't want to risk a hammer cutting off his chance to answer. Ofc I wasn't just saying I was fine with his lynch so early in the phase. That's all.

I kinda like the new look besides the Discord box being on every page of the forums now -w- Anyway, what I was about to post over an hour ago: I have no idea. Mack's EoD doesn't make sense for scum, so I'm dropping that, you've answered my questions and I don't see any merit in the townslip issue, and I think all of the problems with Elie are the result of his lack of time. Right now, Marth is confirmed, BBM and Mack look town from last EoD, I think you and Bartozio are town, and I'm going to be working from there. Because I had questions on him? Er, no, I wasn't, I openly said I wasn't voting because he had 4 votes and I wanted to give him more time to reply? Also, as a side point I noticed while rereading:

Not really, he's answered the questions I had pretty satisfyingly. I disagree with the Elie vote, however, simply because the case against him can pretty much be answered by his being just that busy. Related, I don't think he'd be this quiet regardless of alignment unless he absolutely couldn't be around. And explain why I'm that different today? (Especially since I just see people actually agreeing with a lot of what I said once they actually get it, whether they saw I said it or not)

did you just legitimately imply the rand would be rigged

Fair. About my vote? I'm saying that it seems you're saying my vote makes sense in the context of my play, what about the reasoning? It's just a strange thing to say about it tbh, doesn't the reasoning/basis of a vote matter more than if it fits in the context of someone's play, whatever exactly that means? True. But why? He gave his town read before Pika came back and there still were people scumreading him, why would it have looked bad for Mack to vote along with them then? Even then, his town read on Pika was even shallower, I don't see why scum wouldn't have gone along with that wagon and tried to get it ahead of the one on what was almost certainly their strongest role.

Nah. What if i'm scum that tried to stick to a weak townie/bussable teammate and avoided consolidating to not have to lynch the Godfather/Role Thief or look bad, if/when they flipped? While taking the time to just say they'd vote Michelaar ahead if necessary? I genuinely felt Mack was worse, of course, and ended up busy and was still typing a post at phase end, but I don't like this read. My vote makes sense with my play, not on its own merits? My refusal to consolidate just doesn't help to read me, it can't be seen as my being stubborn/confident town or scum trying to avoid the wagons? This is wrong too, he took (weak) stances on both players and had both as town when he could easily have joined the wagon on Pika. And why is it fencesitting with him but a NAI refusal to consolidate with me? Refa's 4/6 of the way to Maj as I finish typing this, so I'll hold back, but I wouldn't mind that lynch today pending how he responds. Actually unsure about voting Mack now.

@Pika_pika42 If that wagon doesn't build, and I honestly doubt it will, would you vote Michelaar over yourself?

It's that nothing after was any less suspicious, but yes. And his recent one/two-line opinions list is not worth much either. I've talked about the joke vote thought, but okay.

Okay, and I see, wasn't sure why you specified ED1 but I get it. And yes, nobody is bothering me more, but I'm keeping my vote for more than just one post as I've said? Also, said post was made far from barely out of RVS, otherwise that point obviously doesn't exist at all. Yes, there's a difference, but I didn't ask him to sheep me? "Will you vote X?" ≠ "Please vote X/Vote with me" So ask? Which parts confuse you? Just saying you don't understand things is arguably worse than actively misreading them. I can't answer a vague "half the time I have no idea what they are talking about", what does this get either of us? Is "someone arguing like they;re purposefully not getting his logic" a bad reason to pressure someone? I don't see where you get that understanding of the argument from, it can be summarized as three things: 1. Arguing my vote on Mack/why I didn't see any of the other weak votes as that suspicious. 2. My back-and-forth with Elie and the idea that I had actively tried to stop it relatively quickly versus my keeping going with the current argument. 3. The use of FOS, how I used it, and whether I actually suspected Elie. Out of those, 3 is the most irrelevant, but then why do you think I really started to get frustrated when it got to that? And so what even if my reads didn't change? Am I supposed to regret challenging a bad push and arguing someone seemingly being intentionally obtuse and not trying to follow just because that didn't lead to a scum catch? Idk, I kinda value being properly understood and not letting misreadings slide. You can't tell the point? A question, then, do you think the way BBM backed off me looks good or not? Unrelated, but I'm not sure I understand, are you calling Prim's case on Pika good or just that he made a case on someone else after backing off Michelaar, and if the former, why does Pika's lack of interactions outweigh that? Are you saying the cases on Michelaar and me are stronger for you as well? Do you really think that's all it is? Anyway, Pika's return is good enough to make me more willing to pick Michelaar over him if it comes down to that. My vote is staying otherwise, however, still nothing impressive from Mack

@Mackc2 Hi, my eye's still firmly on you, but while you're here, I'd like to interrupt your opinion train to ask that you focus on the people at the center of things. That is, specifically reads on BBM, Michelaar, and me, and who you'd lynch between Pika and Michelaar. Go.

Nah, not getting by. Getting aggravated over this crap alone isn't alignment-indicative and you don't get to just drop another (stronger, wasn't it?) scumread this easily. Pika's already the likely lynch today, you can commit to dealing with me. Or are you suddenly worried it will look worse for you? I'm one of the more friendly hornet's nests, let's go. Would you like me to quote the post you want this time or find it yourself?

Because I was saying he could do better, not that it was scummy. I stopped the discussion exactly because it would produce nothing else, and even if he had done something actually scummy, spending more time taking up the thread with that when it wouldn't accomplish any more but noise only helps scum. For a game where communication is very important, people seem to have a hard time reading, because I'm getting sick of repeating the same things. I don't give a damn what something's called when it matters more what it does and how it's used. Past that, read my posts, and if you're really incapable of grasping how I use it, just shut up. And part of that is not getting into arguments? Do you think I'm focused on just surviving and blending in?

Okay, yes, I can't argue that and I'm too tired of this, so I'll just say that if you can't see how there's still a difference between the timing and nature of their posts and Mack's, go away. So I use it differently, next. Yes, and that's not just what I was doing, I was saying don't lynch these people. And are you being purposefully dense? Do you have other suspicions besides Proto and me? Why does it matter that I have only one suspicion when it's d1 and nobody has more than one or two? Is it really that hard to get that I was saying that I thought Elie's push was too weak for what I expected of him and that was not itself an alignment read? Alright, good, so your read on Proto was based on 1-2 posts and weaker than yours on others, namely me. Glad that's clear. You still seem to be missing where I said I use FOS for things that aren't on the level of suspicion yet despite the name. Consider it a formal way of saying "I know you can do better than this". (And guess who else used it that way, funnily enough?) Because otherwise, there's no point. If I would vote someone, I say so, if I won't just do it then. Seeing as my only suspicion is Mack, I don't know. Pika, maybe, since that seems to be the way things are heading, but grudgingly, he's just a weak lynchbait player and as far as I see, he's just being simply that again here. I'll likely decide if and when it's necessary to break a tie.

do people even read my posts

I'm not scumreading Elie, what ED1 scumread, I explained why there's no good response there, and yes, being the third vote matters when it looks like a blatantly opportunistic attempt to wagon, and I'm starting to get tired of people seemingly not trying to understand what I'm saying? Pretty much nothing, everything past his first two posts looks like scum flailing before finally coming up with a reason for his second vote hours later. I never said anything besides that his first vote looks like cocky newb scum? Fair, I can be aggressive if not adversial, but I'm not scumreading Elie. A FOS is not a vote. And what is so confusing about my asking Elie about something I didn't see him address, his thoughts on mine and his own read on Mack? The point is not whether it would be a lynch. Mack still jumped on a wagon in a very suspicious way. It's indefensible because as I said, all that he could say was that it was a joke, he can't really justify it being anything else and it would lead nowhere. It's possible for town to do anything lol, that's not the point. I chose to vote him then because that vote looked scummy, I'm still voting him because nothing since looks better. I don't want to repeat this.

Correct, a response to that accusation probably wouldn't have changed my mind. That's why I didn't want to see a defense against the explanation of why the post was scummy and I thought leaving him to respond to the vote alone would be more helpful. I might have a better view of him if he responded to the pressure by improving, but he didn't. It's not just terrible play, it looks like cocky newb scum trying to slip in a third vote on someone and quickly dropping it. That's the scum intent. No, giving solid reasoning certainly can give a push more weight, but here it was pointless, all the reasoning to add was "That's a fucking blatantly obvious attempt to wagon lol". Does that really add anything when stated? And again, I wanted him to respond to getting voted by potentially improving, not by trying to defend something indefensible. And clarify how A. my responses to them are incredibly defensive (because I didn't know I should take being declared a lynch option for bad reasons in stride and just let the push happen) and if so, how it's emphasizing looking townish? If I just wanted to look town, I'd sooner give in rather than argue and make more of a scene of it btw. So what do you think I meant, then, and what was unclear in your mind? Hence why I said "despite the name"? If you're using it for someone genuinely suspicious when you can just goddamn vote, I don't know what to say. I find them "unusual" because I think he knows me better than to push now and can do better than he did, but that's not something I'd vote him over. I saw little value in continuing because he was doubling down, we'd both said all that was worth saying about it and it would just be a distraction to continue. You ignored the whole point. Let me rephrase that post then: I disagree with lynches on any of these people because I think the cases on them are wrong or weak. So what if I ended up regurgitating what someone else said about Michelaar? I had that thought on my own, and from the votes on him, I don't see what the problem with someone else saying it is. And how many suspicions do you have, now? ... You make a vote if you think someone's suspicious. Do I really need to say how making a vote that you just drop because that player isn't around and you just want to go after currently active posters seems really off? If you don't think the case is bad, why are you ever dropping your vote before he does anything to change your read? You can push active posters without dropping a case you still think is good, right? It. Was. The. Third. Vote. On. BBM. For. No. Fucking. Reason. The other votes, while empty, weren't "incidentally" wagoning. Either Mack had skimmed the thread at best and blindly threw out a joke vote after RVS had clearly ended (that happened to be the third on BBM), or he's level 0 scum that tried to slip a vote on a wagon as a "joke" and only backpedaled when he faced pressure. It's indefensible because what's there to say? Pretty much all you can do in defense is what he did, try to play it off as a joke and say "Okay, read the thread for real this time!" (Except I don't think anyone doesn't see that vote was just as bad)

No, it means I wasn't saying "You suck and don't deserve explanations!!!", but rather that I wanted to see how he responded without what was scummy about it being spelled out for him. I mean from in games, lol. No. If I think someone is suspicious, I vote. FOS, to me, despite the name, means that someone is behaving off but not actually suspicious/scummy yet, and Elie's push on me qualifies. My pressure against him decreased because I saw little point in continuing it, hence why I tried to end the argument entirely in the next post. I asked him about voting Mack if he got off me because I wanted to see if he'd agree with my thoughts on that, Idc who's on my side, only if people engage with my reasoning. So you reread my post and admit you misunderstood it, but don't actually respond to what I really said? Why is my other content lackluster, in your own words? Idk Michelaar, but I've given my thoughts on that. I do know Pika enough to say that's his play level, like I said then. It's not filler when I want to deter a potential mislynch because people expect more of someone than he'd deliver. Okay, so it seems you agree with me on Michelaar, but why is Mack not scummy enough to vote? And if Proto hasn't satisfied you, why back off? What made the reasons for your vote vanish? Or are you admitting it was a bad case from the start? Yes? I don't see why I shouldn't barring his really ramping his game up, or a check or something.

Because he came in well past RVS to just throw out the third vote on BBM, showing he either was paying zero attention or newb scum trying to slip his vote on a wagon through refuge in audacity. I think it's the latter ofc, and his behavior since doesn't help. And I just get a better sense from Michelaar, he just seems more open to responding to people and giving what thoughts he does have, and his "I don't have much to say" is better than Mack's random suspicious behavior and having to be pressured into giving any explanations.