I thought behavior prods were supposed to be private. And we have another 48 hour day phase? Sheesh.
Here is your hopefully one and only shit post of things I noticed/caught on the re-read. Once again, the amount of content doubled after I went to bed in the last six hours of the phase. Thanks guys.
***
PX calls out Mitsuki for calling out Oarfish for lurking.
Please explain why you have an issue with this.
Oarfish, for his part, had no vote yesterday when it was a tie between PX and Zakeri. FYI I hate random flips, it should be first-past-the-post or something. I think not voting is super scummy regardless of Zak/PX's alignment.
PX: "The Shadoweh Wagon is dumb."
Why?
PXRandomly calls me out for flavor gaming.
We actually had Oarfish and Dorian focusing on flavor gaming, so I want to know why PX called for me over them.
***
Dorian:
For an instance, rule 5. and 6. make a lot of sense when you think that scum had two vampires and one not-vampire in their team back then. You see what I mean?
I assumed there were two scum players and they could recruit a third not-vampire player. Are you saying there is already a third player, and they can recruit a fourth?
***
Dan
This doesn't answer the question of why you'd vote someone (why it's scummy) for not including an explanation for their vote. None is required if it's RVS, and if it isn't the explanation according to you is implicit.
Because I felt that it was a policy vote rather than a RVS vote. I thought that a scum player might want to be able to justify their votes, and a policy vote in RVS is a great way to do it, and the lack of explanation attached to said vote seemed odd to me. If it feels odd, I'll vote it.
Dan
I did not affect BT.
How about 'lets not all comment on who did not do it so scum cant work out who did it by POE thanks'.
***
SB
I'm kind of wary of Skypal atm because there's none of the usual insane energy in his posts and the best scumread he put out was basically on Zak for not doing anything? It's not that I disagree with it, but calling out inactivity/lack of opinions when you have none yourself doesn't really sit right with me?
I'm trying not to shitpost this game, so I'm happy you're noticing a difference~
I voted for Zak because he stated an intent to not do anything and then consolidate at phase end, when his only vote so far was to policy vote Dan for doing nothing. So, I voted for him because he basically vote parked and I thought that was scum. There was plenty of other material to discuss, including the emergent wagons on NNR, PX, and even Shadoweh. So it was really unacceptable to vote park that early in the phase and never come back to address it, and ever worse to
state that was your plan. Of course he flipped green so ugh.
Before Zak, I'd already voted you and Oarfish, and made a number of posts, so it's not like I am lacking activity or opinions. I'm just trying not to wall post every time.
Also I kind of feel that every time I go to bed right before a phase end, SB tries to start/push a Sky wagon, so this is not on it's own alignment indicative.
***
In response to BTI thought/think the scum team has two players and have a facional ability to recruit a third. Because it would be OP if town lynched a recruiter before night 2.
When Conqueror said, "Was tempted to firebomb a lurker here since they would be prime suspects for scum recruiter but I'll start here", I assumed that a recruiter would
want to target a lurker, such as Dan/Zak (players who normally coast through to LYLO without doing anything). At the time I thought poorly of Conqueror for suggesting this - if we are just gonna lynch a lurker to avoid a conversion, we might as well policy lynch. Then I considered that scum often lurk too. So I felt this strategy was unintentionally sound - we may actually net a scum, and at the very worst we would kill off a useless player in a non-critical phase. ActionDan's alignment and afkness ALWAYS comes up, more often than not in LYLO; if we are going to lynch a lurker, the best time is day 1 before we have wagon analysis and night info to go on. We then had Zak state publicly he was going afk, and I went -> IDEA.
So my interpretation was "Let's lynch a lurker because scum will recruit from them (and secretly there could be a scum in there!)".
When SB posted another interpretation, an interpretation that was different from mine, I wondered what the reason was. I assumed there was only one interpretation from a town-minded player, and that if SB had a different interpretation, then he was coming from a different mindset - one of scum. So that is why I voted him for it. However, Conqueror then said that I was the one who read it wrong, so I was quite frustrated by that.
***
Oarfish came in near phase end and unvoted because
no real reason when wagons were tied/close/something or other, town should have made a decision. I would have probably kept on voting Zak because I am a jerk though. I think he's scum for being unwilling to commit to a wagon. Town doesn't really care if they mislynch a lurker, scum care a lot if they can't explain their vote.
Coincidentally I pegged Oarfish for not explaining his RVS early day 1 so this feels too good to be true. But I want to beleive o/
##vote OarfishArbitrary scumteam picks: Oarfish, PX, Dan.
I will reflect on Dormio/CF7 after my doctor appointment *shudder*
