Touhou: Scarlet Devil M̶a̶n̶s̶i̶o̶n̶ Mafia

Should Day 2 be extended by another twenty-four hours?

  • Yes

    Votes: 10 83.3%
  • No

    Votes: 2 16.7%

  • Total voters
    12
  • Poll closed .
End of Night 5/Start of Day 6
The party of nine from where they had entered in the night comes out to a party of seven, all of them looking as two more of their numbers have vanished. And so like every night prior, the two missing are revealed.



The first is revealed as Reisen Inaba, Moon Rabbit on Earth (@Shalmoa), who 'died' from a Knock on the Head.



The second is revealed as Alice Margatroid, Seven-Colored Puppet Master (@dinomannitro6), who 'died' from being Knocked Out In A Closet.

And a message is left upon the table to read.

Reevals needed on Walker's flip
Everyone needs progressions now IMO
Hobo's vote NAI even if late due to self-pres
Other votes probably won't get good info at this point
Not sure if absences are notable right now (Dino/Comi, YP to a lesser extent)
Figure one more affordable miss ATM but needs serious discussion given game length
Probably makes it a good spot to fill out claim space
Wiadi, Comi, Atoms are the only unclaimed ATM
Atoms can clear with N5 Town kill, Wiadi/Comi mech-locked out of Odd-Night TKP

And so the seven members of the party begin the sixth day…

End of Day is at
 
Last edited:
Yeah, you're just over-complicating my calculus. In a three role-claim world, one of the three roleblocked players had to be scum. By Day 5, I had a bunch of reasons to believe why it wasn't Dino. So, naturally, from my perspective, the one lying had to be Shalmoa.
If I were in this situation, this would have been the point where I hard-push Shalmoa though. It'd be even easier for you to do so in particular, since you had already spent a good amount of time pushing Shal during the previous Day. Why divert to a second target when it's simply more efficient to continue arguing the established one?

Why else would YP back Shalmoa in that scenario if he also wasn't his scum buddy?
Off the top of my head, it gives YP credit for helping to save Town by the time a flip does occur. It's the same principle as people taking credit for spiking Scum in votes.

Then, if we add your own logic, a scum!voyeur doesn't even have to be a voyeur to clear Shalmoa, because he would be a part of the scum!team, and therefore would know who the maf!team targeted that night. Assuming your world (and mine at the time for that matter), he would've been able to lie about Shal's roleblock, and then he would've voyeured someone else. In that scenario, YP is equally likely to be scum as Shalmoa is. The only reason why you're saying that it's not today is because if it was, the YP argument falls apart.
YP could have taken action on someone else, sure. We have no way to know that without investigative results to confirm it though, so I won't dwell on that kind of question. End point about YP's Scum equity being equal to Shal's is rendered moot under the idea that Scum!YP could have decided to help Shal regardless of the latter's alignment

And, that's extra funny, because you seem to believe that a YP scum!world is possible now. So what's the hold up? I'd have to remind you that I thought the same thing yesterday. So where's this dissonance coming from?
Again, my change of heart regarding YP stems from new discussions that simply did not exist during Day 5, combined with a brief reread resulting from that. I don't know what more you want me to say about it.
 
So you're scum-reading YP, but you have also formed your argument based on something that YP said. Cool. Yeah, so in your world in which YP is scum, why wouldn't he lie about Byz's role-delay actually being a roleblock to implicate me? Answer very carefully.
I'd like to first reiterate that the YP stuff is predicated mostly on both of you being Scum (hence why I specified it as a team read originally). At this stage I want you first, then I'll proceed to do another evaluation of YP to keep the momentum strong afterward.

To answer your question though, in a Scum!YP, Town!Hermit world? He has absolutely no reason not to lie about it and hard push the idea that you have to be Scum. This is the entire basis of why I pushed him on that theory in the first place, but instead, the denial was more of a half-hearted "people think this isn't true, so let's just assume this isn't true" than anything, predicated on the fact that you -- the person in which his theory directly implicates -- were the one person that directly pushed back against it (rightfully so regardless of your alignment, to be clear).

Like, my YP idea probably just doesn't exist at all if that end response doesn't happen, since otherwise the rest of his content is comparatively on significantly stronger footing.
 
Idk why you need me specifically.
Honestly, I don't understand the need to wait for people to be in the thread at all -- feels like wasted time to me since it's not like we're at a point where anything can be outright ignored in discussions. I trust that, at the very least, Town will take the game state seriously enough to read and formulate their opinions and progressions.
 
Okay. Now that everyone's here, Let me tell you why I find this situation funny. I'm going to start with a slight -Rosen accusation here but my real motive for this post is to explain why I didn't shoot Day 2. So like, I'm going now:

--​

At the beginning of this game, I made a prediction. I predicted that my social solves would be really high, but my mechanical knowledge (or lack there of) would be the thing that screwed me over. Why I am mentioning this?

Because I basically had the reads I had now back in Day 2. But then Night 3 came along (the Night that basically signaled the start of Night mechanical play), and I got lost in the sauce. Example? My Day 2 scum!team in my notes as of 1 / 2 / 2024 was Atoms, Wiadi, Rosen, and Hugh. I read Atoms because of his general inactivity, and everyone here should know why I voted for Hugh. Why -Rosen and Wiadi, though? Because I did not like how convenient and easily performed the Variable vote was. In-fact, I can name the exact series of posts that ticked me off:

They were Posts #1125, #1157, #1776, and some others (mentioning them later because I'm 100% going to get feedback for this). Why?

You'd have to have been there to have felt the impact of #1125. What was so impactful about it? It was the fact that -Rosen immediately took the side of Wiadi and voted for Nanimani because of it. There wasn't any hesitation, no questioning, no attempt to see her side. And then -Rosen took that opportunity to make not one, but two ISOs clearing Wiadi. And then, pushing it a little bit into the future, -Rosen decides to drop the Byzantine cheerlead / delay idea the moment it starts to implicate Wiadi in any way, shape or form, and then immediately takes Wiadi's version of events regarding the cheerlead situation when it came to that in his Post #3148, despite the fact that both parties had no way to determine the truthfulness of either event at the time (With -Rosen basically saying this exact same thing at the bottom of his Post #3042)

I'm not a vet, so I don't know. But I think that this is a link.

Now maybe saving this up for Day 6 and waiting until everyone got together for it might've been a bit over-dramatic. But everyone's asking me why I didn't shoot Day 2. And, after dropping that I scum!read both -Rosen and Wiadi Day 2, there must be a lot of questions as to why I never took the shot. So I wanted to answer that now, after -Rosen justified a continuing an ISO on me because I... was misleading the town into believing that there were four scum total instead of five scum total. Still a wild opener, that one.

And, really, the answer to that question is simple, as it is embarrassing. I hesitated. I saw that Ori, at the end of Day 2, Town-Read Wiadi for the Variable hunt, and then when combined with the results of the Variable hunt (that being Variable flipping Red), I decided not to shoot. I was new to both the game and the community, and I basically reasoned to myself that I was just seeing things. Very easy conclusion to come to when everyone else walked on by. In hindsight, I probably should've of shot someone on the LHFA to speed things up but whatever.

Evidence? My Post #1431, and my Post #1588. For the former, I didn't want to name any names at that point because I wasn't lying when I said that I didn't have any hard evidence as to why I thought them suspicious. I also would've A) been pretty easily defeated, and would've been prevented from reasonably following up my points with more evidence later, and B) with everyone else town-reading them at the time, I didn't want to be the odd one out and be called out for it. Especially when Ori said pretty stringently that she wouldn't except any scum!reads from everyone but two people towards Wiadi scum!reads. So. Yikes.

As for the latter post? Notice that little bit at the end there that says, "I don't like how convenient this vote is." And the reason why I said that was because of what I said earlier; the Variable hunt felt too easy to me at the time, and too convenient for several parties if it ended up being the prime wagon.

Now I know what's going to happen next. Wiadi is going to burst into the thread, and point at the reads list I made for her in my Post #2789. Several things about that. One. I was scum!reading Shalmoa / YP the most at the time, with Walker second. I pushed any other reads I had at that moment to the back burner, because I didn't want to fight against several people at once. Two. I mentioned that the Variable vote seemed natural because I basically gas-light myself into believing that after I considered the Shalmoa / YP push to be more accurate and other town-members said so. I essentially went back into the thread, and, instead of looking at the context (Funny note that Variable town!read -Rosen so easily despite being manipulated by him the last game), looked at the exact wording of the content in question and basically fell for it. It didn't help that because of my reads at the time, it was easier to believe.

And then the second question is going to be, "Why did you push for Shalmoa, then?" Literally nothing I'm going to say here is going to convince -Rosen and Wiadi for obvious reasons, but the very simple reason was that I got distracted. Shal popping into the thread like a gopher to declare his innocence so flamboyantly threw me off, to say the absolute least, and with everyone else town-reading my suspects at the time (I didn't want to stick out from the crowd as a newbie) I took the bait. Combined with him surviving Night 4 with a lot of details going amiss, (you can literally just follow my thought process on him from Day 4 onwards, the fact that we still don't know what happened on Night 3 backs me up here) I stuck myself into a hole and flew off in a completely inaccurate direction. It didn't help that he didn't answer a lot of the questions I had in my walls.

As to my claim? Literally. And I am not joking when I say this. I was so convinced that Shal and -Rosen were scum that I got a plan stuck in my head about how I was going to lynch Shal and then vig -Rosen that night. At the time, nobody knew if the roleblockers / action-delayers were definitively scum-shaded, so it sounded like a good idea. I just needed to convince the town that I was right, and I knew that doing so required me to hard-claim my role to gain town-trust. Suffice to say, I was wrong about Shal, and I'm literally never doing a gambit like that ever again.

Oh! And thirdly! I was still scum-reading -Rosen by Day 4 because of something that Nani said, which basically came down to "Wiadi started the push, but -Rosen just jumped onto it." So that made me think about a world in which Wiadi wasn't scum but -Rosen was. And because I was scum!reading Shalmoa at the time and nobody else seemed shady... Well, I bumped off the former off of my list and added the latter onto it.

I'm going to ask that my town friends here @Young Pyromancer, @ComiTurtle, and @A Bunch Of Atoms to ask me a bunch of questions about this before EoD, but suffice to say that if -Rosen's right about there being five scum, then a -Rosen, Wiadi, Hugh Team seems the most likely. I can be here until the end of time so let me just follow up by saying:

Now onto more 1v1ing.
 
If I were in this situation, this would have been the point where I hard-push Shalmoa though. It'd be even easier for you to do so in particular, since you had already spent a good amount of time pushing Shal during the previous Day. Why divert to a second target when it's simply more efficient to continue arguing the established one?

We can go over my methods later, but suffice to say me deciding to target one possible scum over another when I could take that opportunity to give my reasonings on why I suspect both of them (Notice that the first wall after my reads list was targeted at both of them) isn't alignment indicative and is more just a difference in methodology. Likewise, we could literally be here until the end of time where you say that this is scum indicative, but the fact of the matter is that you have no response to the fact that yes, in a situation where Dino also claimed hard-roleblock, both Shal and YP would have been guilty. Shal for lying about the roleblock (as it couldn't of been Dino) and YP for backing up the liar (one of us had to be lying, and it wasn't Dino).

Off the top of my head, it gives YP credit for helping to save Town by the time a flip does occur. It's the same principle as people taking credit for spiking Scum in votes.

Would be relevant and true. If it wasn't for the fact that in that scenario, where one of us was lying, it couldn't of been Dino. And, from my perspective, it would've of had to had been Shalmoa and YP. I could've of been lying, I suppose, but that is far too much effort. You are purposing a world in which, instead of voting for Walker and being done with it, I... faked, being surprised at the fact that Dino also claimed a hard-roleclaim, and then used that to my advantage to try to implicate... a Shalmoa / YP scum!team. This ignores the fact that my entire argument could've been and was easily popped by Dino stepping back and saying, "No, it was actually a Role-Delay," which I would of known as Scum and had no reason to believe that he wouldn't of said it that day, and therefore would've been a terribly ineffective and short-lasting way to implicate someone as scum. In this world, not only would've I had voted out YP when Walker was right there and was also being scum!read by both you and Shalmoa, I also would've of ran the incredibly likely and absolute risk of Dino breaking my entire cover in an instant by deciding to speak up once, where the only reason why he thought that it was a hard-roleblock and not a role-delay being credited solely to GM error.

You accuse me of drinking too much wine, sir, but I consider that terribly ironic considering what you just suggested.

YP could have taken action on someone else, sure. We have no way to know that without investigative results to confirm it though, so I won't dwell on that kind of question. End point about YP's Scum equity being equal to Shal's is rendered moot under the idea that Scum!YP could have decided to help Shal regardless of the latter's alignment

Why? I mean, why wouldn't scum!YP help out Shalmoa in a world where I considered both of them scum? You are trying to recreate my thought-process on Day 5, and your alternative solutions are great and all, but it's literally just as basic as that.

But I understand what you're saying, so let me walk through this.

In a world in where both me and YP were scum, you are accusing me of fabricating a scenario in which we both... decided to fake a three hard-claim roleblock to,

Okay I'm going to be real, when put into perspective with my last reply I literally can't see this world, you're going to have to elaborate on this a little bit more
 
Wiadi is going to burst into the thread, and point at the reads list I made for her in my Post #2789.
Just 'cause you called it doesn't mean I'm wrong. We've moved on from "wildly swing between wagons" to "actually I was totally already Scumreading everyone who's pushing me, please ignore when I explicitly said otherwise at the time." Fundamentally what you're proposing is (a) impossible to verify, (b) not the simplest explanation (understatement), and (c) awfully convenient for your current position. It's simply not credible.
 
(also you're just factually wrong on at least one point but I don't have time to get into it right now, will cover later if nobody beats me to it)
 
They were Posts #1125, #1157, #1176, and some others (mentioning them later because I'm 100% going to get feedback for this). Why?

You'd have to have been there to have felt the impact of #1125. What was so impactful about it? It was the fact that -Rosen immediately took the side of Wiadi and voted for Nanimani because of it. There wasn't any hesitation, no questioning, no attempt to see her side. And then -Rosen took that opportunity to make not one, but two ISOs clearing Wiadi. And then, pushing it a little bit into the future, -Rosen decides to drop the Byzantine cheerlead / delay idea the moment it starts to implicate Wiadi in any way, shape or form, and then immediately takes Wiadi's version of events regarding the cheerlead situation when it came to that in his Post #3148, despite the fact that both parties had no way to determine the truthfulness of either event at the time (With -Rosen basically saying this exact same thing at the bottom of his Post #3042)
So to go over these posts as referenced:

#1125: This was the thing that led me to want to ISO Wiadi in the first place, since I spent some time earlier in the game claiming several slots felt very samey, and therefore I didn't really have good reads on them (at the time these included Ori, Cyricubed, and Wiadi, with Nani on a slightly higher cusp of the same idea [#606]. Having a definite interaction between Shalmoa, Nani, and Wiadi, stemming from Wiadi's initial case on a Shalmoa/Zaealix issue [#1111], gave good reason to try to resolve another one of the "samey" slots, given Ori was already improved in my eyes based on the EoD1.

#1157: If you'll notice, I call out pretty early that the idea of Nani's distrust is justified in light of a previous in-game interaction [#173], and was willing to ease up on the initial premise from #1125 because of it [#1168]. Besides that, I'm not sure what you're getting at saying I'm clearing Wiadi with these ISOs? I understand that they put her in a positive light from my perspective having done them, but clearing her outright is a pretty massive stretch.

#1176: Also fixed the number within the quote for consistency (was cited as #1776 originally). I get that you want to establish a narrative that I happily throw votes around when people try to shade Wiadi, but this case in particular ignores prior context, trying to get a more established explanation for Variable's shift to Scum-reading Wiadi [#1168]. My vote in #1176 comes after Variable's response to this [#1173], which you would be insane to think doesn't warrant an immediate vote on account of it just being a completely blatant OMGUS.

Like, I understand that it's a happy coincidence that the posts you pulled were all Wiadi-positive, but the narrative pressed around them is incorrect, not to mention you waited from Day 2 to Day 6 to posit this at all? I don't buy it.



Separated here since the latter two posts cover a different topic.

#3148: I can't help but think you are deliberately misrepresenting this post now, so I'll lay it out post-by-post so that it can't possibly be misconstrued again:

#3036/3038 - Some early ruminations from YP questioning whether Byzantine got accurate results, but doesn't really state it outright here. That happens in #3056 instead.
#3059 - Expansion of the post above, stating that it's unlikely an RBer would simply not act for a Night.
#3061 - YP doubles down on the feedback fuckery idea.
#3064 - My first direct engagement with YP's theory of Byzantine feedback fuckery. I discredit this idea outright on account of the situation at the time leaving Byzantine with the only truly inconsistent result, with all others being rectified in some manner.
#3065 - YP confirms the original premise with me, that there has been enough inconsistency that it could have also happened to Byz. Does not interact with the discrediting of the idea.
#3068 - My response to the above, under the headspace that YP believes what he's thinking regarding the Byzantine theory. Hence why I asked for a team read off Hermit first, rather than general Scum-reads.
#3099 - I circle back to YP on the Byzantine theory after some unrelated posts. This was done because it seemed like YP's paradigm of team-reading me with Hermit completely fell apart, so looking to reaction-test the idea again seemed like a good call to make.
#3101/3102 - YP's dismissal of the Byzantine theory, as I've already spoken of before.
#3128 - Part 3 of my big wall earlier. Zeroing in on YP's section, I reference the same set of posts I have at the top of this section as the basis for the idea.
#3131 - Atoms asks me for clarification on the YP stuff, specifically regarding the theoretical stance on Hermit.
#3140 - My clarification, stating that in Team!YP/Hermit world, YP's theory effectively forces him to bus Hermit under any level of belief behind it, because it's the only thing that makes sense for his slot from there.
#3141 - YP pushes back against this idea at the general level of the theory, notably saying he wouldn't push Hermit because he doesn't believe in the idea, whereas I was more so in the world of "YP believes this so not pushing Hermit doesn't make sense," since that's what Atoms asked about.
#3145 - I explain the situation again to YP, again focusing on the "YP believes in Byzantine theory" angle, since again, that's what I was discussing with Atoms.
#3147 - YP asks for clarification about not having danger to miss.
#3148 - The post which was originally called out. Notably it should be N2 in my post instead of N3 but that's beside the point. This post basically just explains the above in a more concise way.[/QUOTE]

#3042: Last of your referenced posts. I can kinda see where you get the idea that my headspace revolves around Wiadi's "was the cheer idea just not true," but again, ignores the fact that I've been telling you that my primary postings about it are in relation to YP's Byzantine theory, not Wiadi's idea of a fake cheer. The two are separate situations, where my talk of the latter was finished with this very post.

Long story short, any further posts ignoring what I've been repeatedly telling you about this situation, I am more than happy to attribute to malice. I don't know how I can be more clear that my headspace is not where you say it is here.
 
We can go over my methods later, but suffice to say me deciding to target one possible scum over another when I could take that opportunity to give my reasonings on why I suspect both of them (Notice that the first wall after my reads list was targeted at both of them) isn't alignment indicative and is more just a difference in methodology. Likewise, we could literally be here until the end of time where you say that this is scum indicative, but the fact of the matter is that you have no response to the fact that yes, in a situation where Dino also claimed hard-roleblock, both Shal and YP would have been guilty. Shal for lying about the roleblock (as it couldn't of been Dino) and YP for backing up the liar (one of us had to be lying, and it wasn't Dino).
I understand what you're saying about Shalmoa and YP both lying in that scenario. To put it simply, in a scenario where this is true, pushing for someone who is lying to back a false claim is is worse than pushing for someone who made the false claim in the first place. You can implicate YP as much as you want, but it doesn't change that you spent the majority of your effort on him, rather than the better target for the situation. Maybe we're arguing past each other at this point, but I don't see myself ever budging on this just from game fundamentalism.

Would be relevant and true. If it wasn't for the fact that in that scenario, where one of us was lying, it couldn't of been Dino. And, from my perspective, it would've of had to had been Shalmoa and YP. I could've of been lying, I suppose, but that is far too much effort. You are purposing a world in which, instead of voting for Walker and being done with it, I... faked, being surprised at the fact that Dino also claimed a hard-roleclaim, and then used that to my advantage to try to implicate... a Shalmoa / YP scum!team. This ignores the fact that my entire argument could've been and was easily popped by Dino stepping back and saying, "No, it was actually a Role-Delay," which I would of known as Scum and had no reason to believe that he wouldn't of said it that day, and therefore would've been a terribly ineffective and short-lasting way to implicate someone as scum. In this world, not only would've I had voted out YP when Walker was right there and was also being scum!read by both you and Shalmoa, I also would've of ran the incredibly likely and absolute risk of Dino breaking my entire cover in an instant by deciding to speak up once, where the only reason why he thought that it was a hard-roleblock and not a role-delay being credited solely to GM error.

You accuse me of drinking too much wine, sir, but I consider that terribly ironic considering what you just suggested.
The issue I have is that, despite the statements to wait for Dino to come and clarify, most of Day 5 was still wasted on the YP/Shal stuff. To what benefit? Obviously, your headspace has YP/Shal as absolute Scum without Dino's clarification, that can't be argued. The problem arises when you go ahead with hard-shoving that link into the thread without consideration for the situation.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, we could have discussed anything else while waiting for Dino to clarify, and if he said he was blocked outright, then let the floodgates open on that argument. Maybe I'm tin foiling here, I don't really know, but with the amount of volume a pretty blatantly mistimed subject took in the thread, I can't help but feel like it was done purposefully.


In a world in where both me and YP were scum, you are accusing me of fabricating a scenario in which we both... decided to fake a three hard-claim roleblock to,

Okay I'm going to be real, when put into perspective with my last reply I literally can't see this world, you're going to have to elaborate on this a little bit more
As discussed above, the issue is more about the progression of the thread after the claims happened, rather than the claims themselves. Your claim looking worse, as a result, is simply an after-effect of me casing it out more Today.
 
#1157: If you'll notice, I call out pretty early that the idea of Nani's distrust is justified in light of a previous in-game interaction [#173], and was willing to ease up on the initial premise from #1125 because of it [#1168]. Besides that, I'm not sure what you're getting at saying I'm clearing Wiadi with these ISOs? I understand that they put her in a positive light from my perspective having done them, but clearing her outright is a pretty massive stretch.
Misgrabbed here -- #1168 should be the next post, #1169.
 
#1176: Also fixed the number within the quote for consistency (was cited as #1776 originally). I get that you want to establish a narrative that I happily throw votes around when people try to shade Wiadi, but this case in particular ignores prior context, trying to get a more established explanation for Variable's shift to Scum-reading Wiadi [#1168]. My vote in #1176 comes after Variable's response to this [#1173], which you would be insane to think doesn't warrant an immediate vote on account of it just being a completely blatant OMGUS.
Misgrabbed the part of the post I said I misgrabbed on :V
 
Not going to throw down my vote just yet since I want to force the EoD chaos here, but I'm pretty firmly set on Hermit at this point.
 
Actually no, that makes less sense with the current landscape and me just stating that outright :V

[x] Vote A Wise Hermit
 
I understand what you're saying about Shalmoa and YP both lying in that scenario. To put it simply, in a scenario where this is true, pushing for someone who is lying to back a false claim is is worse than pushing for someone who made the false claim in the first place. You can implicate YP as much as you want, but it doesn't change that you spent the majority of your effort on him, rather than the better target for the situation. Maybe we're arguing past each other at this point, but I don't see myself ever budging on this just from game fundamentalism.

This point isn't genuine anymore. We're down to "You know, I get what you're saying, but you're still wrong and I'm still going to vote you out despite the fact that I fundamentally see the scenario you're laying down. Why? Because uh, I didn't like how you did it." You've literally reached the point that you have to play word games just to justify a scum-sided headspace on Day 5.

"You spent the majority of your effort on him,"

"But you could've spent that time going after a better target instead."

That isn't a scum read. That's like, gentle advice for the future. Or like, light criticism about how I played. Not justification for a lynching. Because the situation on Day 5 fully supports what I did, and the subtext of every discussion we've had up until this point implies that you understand that. So it's as I said. We can be here until the end of the universe as you keep pushing on the fact that me pushing on two people I was scum reading at the time is actually scum-sided because you don't like the methods I used (Despite the fact that AGAIN, in my wall against YP, I implicated both of them, and in a scenario where one was scum in a three-hard roleblock world, the other would be too), or we can both agree that this point is stupid and we can stop talking about it.

The issue I have is that, despite the statements to wait for Dino to come and clarify, most of Day 5 was still wasted on the YP/Shal stuff. To what benefit? Obviously, your headspace has YP/Shal as absolute Scum without Dino's clarification, that can't be argued. The problem arises when you go ahead with hard-shoving that link into the thread without consideration for the situation.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, we could have discussed anything else while waiting for Dino to clarify, and if he said he was blocked outright, then let the floodgates open on that argument. Maybe I'm tin foiling here, I don't really know, but with the amount of volume a pretty blatantly mistimed subject took in the thread, I can't help but feel like it was done purposefully.

Most of Day 5 was wasted on the YP/Shal stuff? Hard disagree, most of Day 5 was wasted on silence. Our target at the time was Walker. No-matter what we said, everyone agreed on Walker. You agreed on Walker. I agreed about Walker, Shalmoa agreed about Walker, etc. And while my Walker vote was late and we did faff about before that, the moment Dino came back, I instantly shut up and voted Walker. No-one, literally no-one, defended Walker. What exactly was there to discuss? You've seen today. Yesterday was the same. Hours of dead-space with nobody talking.

We have, once again, degraded into "I see what you're saying. But because you did this thing that lead to us wasting time, uh-oh, that means that it's a scum read." Or, alternative: It was just me using the time I had during day discussion to defend myself when I thought that I was being cornered. But you're never going to accept that, huh?

As discussed above, the issue is more about the progression of the thread after the claims happened, rather than the claims themselves. Your claim looking worse, as a result, is simply an after-effect of me casing it out more Today.

Ok

Like, I understand that it's a happy coincidence that the posts you pulled were all Wiadi-positive, but the narrative pressed around them is incorrect, not to mention you waited from Day 2 to Day 6 to posit this at all? I don't buy it.

Literally would've both fought both you and Shalmoa at the same time. I think my socials are good but I'm not doing both of those things for literally my first time in the game. Hense, my entire strategy of resolving one player to then vig the other player. It was a coping mechanism, not a master plan.
 
Most of Day 5 was wasted on the YP/Shal stuff? Hard disagree, most of Day 5 was wasted on silence. Our target at the time was Walker. No-matter what we said, everyone agreed on Walker. You agreed on Walker. I agreed about Walker, Shalmoa agreed about Walker, etc. And while my Walker vote was late and we did faff about before that, the moment Dino came back, I instantly shut up and voted Walker. No-one, literally no-one, defended Walker. What exactly was there to discuss? You've seen today. Yesterday was the same. Hours of dead-space with nobody talking.

Wait, hold on. True. Going to counter my own point here and remind myself that I voted for Hobo. Same difference at the time, really, and I agreed that either one of them had to go. Nonetheless, point still stands that I didn't argue at all about the Walker vote.
 
This point isn't genuine anymore. We're down to "You know, I get what you're saying, but you're still wrong and I'm still going to vote you out despite the fact that I fundamentally see the scenario you're laying down. Why? Because uh, I didn't like how you did it." You've literally reached the point that you have to play word games just to justify a scum-sided headspace on Day 5.

"You spent the majority of your effort on him,"

"But you could've spent that time going after a better target instead."

That isn't a scum read. That's like, gentle advice for the future. Or like, light criticism about how I played. Not justification for a lynching. Because the situation on Day 5 fully supports what I did, and the subtext of every discussion we've had up until this point implies that you understand that. So it's as I said. We can be here until the end of the universe as you keep pushing on the fact that me pushing on two people I was scum reading at the time is actually scum-sided because you don't like the methods I used (Despite the fact that AGAIN, in my wall against YP, I implicated both of them, and in a scenario where one was scum in a three-hard roleblock world, the other would be too), or we can both agree that this point is stupid and we can stop talking about it.
My point is more outlined in the idea that I think this is a deliberate action on your part. My explanations from this point are just expansions of that base idea, and we're probably going back and forth on similar points now because of that.

Most of Day 5 was wasted on the YP/Shal stuff? Hard disagree, most of Day 5 was wasted on silence. Our target at the time was Walker. No-matter what we said, everyone agreed on Walker. You agreed on Walker. I agreed about Walker, Shalmoa agreed about Walker, etc. And while my Walker vote was late and we did faff about before that, the moment Dino came back, I instantly shut up and voted Walker. No-one, literally no-one, defended Walker. What exactly was there to discuss? You've seen today. Yesterday was the same. Hours of dead-space with nobody talking.

We have, once again, degraded into "I see what you're saying. But because you did this thing that lead to us wasting time, uh-oh, that means that it's a scum read." Or, alternative: It was just me using the time I had during day discussion to defend myself when I thought that I was being cornered. But you're never going to accept that, huh?
Can you be so sure that silence would be the default state otherwise though? The wind was fully in the Shal/YP sail early, and Dino's clarification late completely killed the momentum behind it. I don't think everything dies down as hard as it does had the Dino clarification come early, or had the Shal/YP discussions not gone so deep beforehand.
 
Ok so

Wiadi:
- Early vote on Variable
- One of the main pushers on Cryi
- Caught visiting Ori D2 (dino never got to act after this (interesting))
- Neighborizer claim (on a dead town) (never answered my question smh)


Hermit:
- Late votes on both Variable and Cryi
- Unprovable vig (don't like answer for n2 no shot)
- Heavy tunneling and fearmongering (walls hurt brain)
- Overly defensive, bordering on OMGUS

Lemme go grind my brain for some plausible teamreads in *checks* 8 minutes.
 
Back
Top