I understand white knighting as defending a townie that will be killed or lynched later to say, "See, I told you so!" Sounds familiar right?
He is yet again referencing the fact that I was not on Shinichi's wagon at EoD.
I have never once stated that I should be Town-read for this. On the contrary, I very explicitly stated that I don't scum-read people simply for being involved in Shinichi's lynch, because he was scummy.
He has repeatedly claimed, in fact, that the Shinichi lynch was somehow my fault. In truth, I clearly stated, even the Day before, in direct response to these claims of his which were starting even before Wheat flipped, that I would be mostly Town-reading Shinichi if Wheat flipped Town -- and vice verse if Shinichi had been the Day Two lynch instead. That was the point of focusing on those two that Day: chances were strong that they were either scum together or Town together, so one lynch would efficiently give us information about both. He repeatedly denied this basic fact and tried to shirk responsibility for the Shinichi lynch onto me while doing exactly what I had said not to do.
He has continued to push this narrative of me somehow benefiting from the Shinichi lynch, even though I never wanted it and stated so a Day in advance. He pushes it every chance he gets, by slipping various false comments like this one into his posts. The veracity of his statements is unimportant as long as he can repeat them enough times for people to believe them.
And you have all sat there and repeatedly Town-read him for it no matter how much he keeps it up.
But, as incredibly silly as that is, that's still okay. That's just scum being scum and Town being brainwashed. It happens. It's irksome, but I'm not upset about that; that's part of the game, and it's not like I haven't both lost to that tactic before as Town and used it successfully as scum (although there's more excuse for it IRL when people can't just scroll back and see the obvious lies).
What I can't ******* tolerate is that, every time I call him out for this repeated lie (and others), he consistently replies immediately with a rules-exploit to protect his scummy behavior: pretending that calling him a liar is against the CoC when it's a basic part of how Mafia works.
I wanted to replace out as soon as this blatant cheating started, but I didn't want to burden Cantrip with even more replacements. I see now that was a poor decision on my part. Really, I probably should have replaced out as soon as Wheat told me via PM and Discord that he was Town (the Out-of-Game incident that forced him to leave), but I figured it'd be okay if I acted exactly as I had before I knew his alignment, which eventually resulted in his lynch. Seemed fair since I would've gotten him lynched before that game-break anyway.
Oh well. I tried, but two game-breakers in one game is too much. Sorry about the *****ty timing of this, @Cantripmancer, but please replace me.
A'right, if you think she's been Townie otherwise, I don't have a problem. (I mean, there goes the possibility of narrowing down a few scum teams, but it's probably more important that we agree she's part of the Town block.)
Also, @GF, I'm honestly not worried about shadow Town-reading me specifically, so much as just narrowing down the possible scum teams by whatever means necessary. Even if I'm on some of his possible scum teams, that's not the end of the world as long as my lynch is saved for a later Day and he has time to reconsider. But a scum team proposal that's got two or more people wrong is a game loss.
When else are you going to specify that someone is probably VT based on the way they played though?
In a normal game? Not often. In a game in which a Vanilla Cop role has just been revealed? Trust me, scum-me could find lots of situations to make that claim after that role's been revealed.
Oh, I just realized we might be using the term "white-knighting" differently. I'm not fully familiar with this meta's terminology.
Are you implying that I prevented RE from being a possible mislynch because it served my purposes as scum to keep her alive? If so, then my argument is indeed inapplicable. I just don't see how that's a reasonable consideration, because she hasn't been blindly Town-reading me or anything.
I thought you were referring to the practice of scum trying to emphasize that they think someone is Town, but then allowing that person to be lynched, so that when the person flips Town then scum will look good. What I did couldn't be described as such if you legitimately thought that I was providing the only reason to Town-read RE, because I would be singlehandedly preventing her lynch.
...But it's not me saying that at all. I mean, it would be if you were Town-locking her, sure. But you yourself stated that it's not a strong read ("ehhh...probably town?"). Feel free to consider scenarios in which I'm scum, and feel free to reconsider your read on RE and look for stronger reasons to Town-read her (because I believe there are multiple). But, if you don't do the latter and instead rely on that as your primary reason to Town-read her, then scenarios in which I'm scum should also include her, cuz otherwise you're defaulting to the assumption that I was white-knighting her and there's no reason to make that assumption in this situation.
Really, what I'm saying is that you should probably reread her if that's your only reason for considering her Town, cuz I think she's done enough legitimate game-solving to be Town-read on her own merits.
I'm not gonna get dragged into the trap of you taking this situation out of context. Yes, it's probably anti-Town in a vacuum, but not when it's used as a defense of a probable Townie.
And I wasn't claiming that I was Townie for it, either. I was saying that, if her claim is your primary reason for Town-reading her, then I'm not scum without her by your own reasoning.
I didn't go "hey, are you Vanilla?" I went "hey, she's most likely a Vanilla Townie so your attempts to lynch her are not appreciated".
I didn't "push her into a claim" as you said; that's simply not how events occurred. She volunteered information to defend herself against Terry, in accordance with my counter to Terry repeating something he'd said for literally a Day (in multiple, contradictory contexts). She was entirely free to let my guess of her role go uncorroborated.
It's really easy to not interacting with them though: YOU STOP FREAKING INTERACTING WITH THEM
You've already shown that you're more prone to remembering Terry's misrepresentations of my posts rather than what I actually said, so it's clear you've been made unaware of how many times I attempted to do exactly that. I'm done with that. Ignoring him would've been better for the game if he'd been capable of doing the same, but, since he's obviously not, allowing him to damage the gamestate unopposed is far worse.
1. Have you never heard of white knighting? Because that's just one reason for scum to block a bad scum read on town.
That's a possibility. That is not the immediate assumption when someone defends a Townie against a poor attack. Thinking that it is (as you are doing if you claim it's more likely to come from scum than from Town) belies a mentality that Townies shouldn't defend anyone but themselves, which is horrific.
Lurker, not rules exploitation, actual behavior. As in, do you believe there is a point that can be reached where you're too aggressive towards someone in game?
Probably. When you want to avoid reaching that point by refraining from interactions with said person, however, and he keeps ignoring that while continuing the blatant rules exploitation, it's no longer really up to you.
And why on earth should RE's claim have any bearing on my read on you, that's ridiculous. Your alignment is irrelevant to reading her as a VT, and if anything, pushing her into that claim is slightly >rand to come from scum. My biggest reason for believing you to be town right now is not even you, it's your predecessor.
How the hell do you get scum-me + Town-RE out of that? My reason for calling her an obvious Vanilla Townie was to get Terry off her back because his reason for scum-reading her was bad. I didn't go "hey, are you Vanilla?" I went "hey, she's a Vanilla Townie so your attempts to lynch her are not appreciated". That's not a scum-me + Town-RE interaction by any stretch of the imagination, unless I'm scum with Terry. Which I'm not, because I don't tolerate rules exploits.
Lurker: For the record, do you believe there is a line of behavior that is "going too far" to win at a game of Mafia?
Have I really not made that abundantly clear? Scum can misrepresent facts and the like; that's fine and expected. But when people point out what they're doing and they respond by saying "HOW DARE YOU ACCUSE ME OF LYING" and exploiting inapplicable rules to defend themselves, yes, that's going way too far. Anything that involves rules exploitation to win in a PvP game, relying on the other players to follow rules that you yourself won't, is bull*****. This is why Wheat's fact-twisting was just scummy but Terry's is blatantly immoral.
RE: ehhh....probably town? That vanilla claim can't be ignored, it's definitely much >random to come from town. If it goes to final 3 with 2 scum PR flips, then look really hard at her.
If that's really your primary reason to Town-read her, I don't see how you can put me as scum without her, because I'm the one who got that Vanilla claim out of her. ('Course, the reason I did was cuz she was playing very much like a Vanilla Townie, so as far as I'm concerned I was already obviously Town-reading her before then. So there are other reasons to Town-read her. But if that's your reason then I shouldn't be scum without her in any of your scenarios.)
QH/Proph: I'm sure that one of them is scum, with the outside chance of both being scum.
Why are Proph/QH unaligned? The quote walls at each other previously? When not backed up by serious votes, I think it's quite possible those walls were SvS theater, and besides, Proph bussing QH is entirely possible given what people (including himself) have said about his meta. I know Proph addressed the idea of the quote-walls being theater, and I'm not ignoring that; it just wasn't a great defense. >_>
@EL, eh, you are right I didnt write clearly. My point in that vote is to show that I trust you LESS than Jey right now. That was reversed before your last interaction. While I was scum reading you, I am willing to accept I could be wrong if only myself and another not-towny read thought so. I thought you were scummy, but not enough to lynch. ToDay, I would be fine with it.
You were literally voting me for half of yesterDay, so I don't buy that retreat. You've forgotten the intensity/duration of your own scum-read, and while that's not scum-lock behavior, it's definitely suspicious.
Re: Shadow tying to JeY, you are mostly right on that, although I didnt like the hammer vote. But without JeY's weird dance, he would be null with maybe a tiny scumlean.
...Yeah, don't do that. Ever. Relying on mono-directional scum-buddying is how the Mafia traps you into mislynching someone that they framed.
Also, I don't like the assertion that Bluefruit was "genuinely scummy" as if it excuses your place on the wagon.(Or any buddies on the wagon.)
Would you rather I say "That slot wasn't scummy and I have no idea why I voted it"? It was a scummy slot. People lynched it for being scummy. Wagon analysis is certainly acceptable, but I don't think it's fair to rail on Anak and KZ for pushing what was a very legitimate wagon. That's all.
No, that was clearly not his intent because he readily went along with my suggestion of Rhand as a post-death one-shot protection previously. He just isn't bothering to have a consistent worldview, and he never has. Dunno why you need to set up particular traps to determine that when you can just ISO him; why would MyLo behavior be a better alignment indicator than three Days' worth of tells?
@Ecophagy: Please replace me.
I have never once stated that I should be Town-read for this. On the contrary, I very explicitly stated that I don't scum-read people simply for being involved in Shinichi's lynch, because he was scummy.
He has repeatedly claimed, in fact, that the Shinichi lynch was somehow my fault. In truth, I clearly stated, even the Day before, in direct response to these claims of his which were starting even before Wheat flipped, that I would be mostly Town-reading Shinichi if Wheat flipped Town -- and vice verse if Shinichi had been the Day Two lynch instead. That was the point of focusing on those two that Day: chances were strong that they were either scum together or Town together, so one lynch would efficiently give us information about both. He repeatedly denied this basic fact and tried to shirk responsibility for the Shinichi lynch onto me while doing exactly what I had said not to do.
He has continued to push this narrative of me somehow benefiting from the Shinichi lynch, even though I never wanted it and stated so a Day in advance. He pushes it every chance he gets, by slipping various false comments like this one into his posts. The veracity of his statements is unimportant as long as he can repeat them enough times for people to believe them.
And you have all sat there and repeatedly Town-read him for it no matter how much he keeps it up.
But, as incredibly silly as that is, that's still okay. That's just scum being scum and Town being brainwashed. It happens. It's irksome, but I'm not upset about that; that's part of the game, and it's not like I haven't both lost to that tactic before as Town and used it successfully as scum (although there's more excuse for it IRL when people can't just scroll back and see the obvious lies).
What I can't ******* tolerate is that, every time I call him out for this repeated lie (and others), he consistently replies immediately with a rules-exploit to protect his scummy behavior: pretending that calling him a liar is against the CoC when it's a basic part of how Mafia works.
I wanted to replace out as soon as this blatant cheating started, but I didn't want to burden Cantrip with even more replacements. I see now that was a poor decision on my part. Really, I probably should have replaced out as soon as Wheat told me via PM and Discord that he was Town (the Out-of-Game incident that forced him to leave), but I figured it'd be okay if I acted exactly as I had before I knew his alignment, which eventually resulted in his lynch. Seemed fair since I would've gotten him lynched before that game-break anyway.
Oh well. I tried, but two game-breakers in one game is too much. Sorry about the *****ty timing of this, @Cantripmancer, but please replace me.
Are you implying that I prevented RE from being a possible mislynch because it served my purposes as scum to keep her alive? If so, then my argument is indeed inapplicable. I just don't see how that's a reasonable consideration, because she hasn't been blindly Town-reading me or anything.
I thought you were referring to the practice of scum trying to emphasize that they think someone is Town, but then allowing that person to be lynched, so that when the person flips Town then scum will look good. What I did couldn't be described as such if you legitimately thought that I was providing the only reason to Town-read RE, because I would be singlehandedly preventing her lynch.
Really, what I'm saying is that you should probably reread her if that's your only reason for considering her Town, cuz I think she's done enough legitimate game-solving to be Town-read on her own merits.
I'm not gonna get dragged into the trap of you taking this situation out of context. Yes, it's probably anti-Town in a vacuum, but not when it's used as a defense of a probable Townie.
...Yeah, don't do that. Ever. Relying on mono-directional scum-buddying is how the Mafia traps you into mislynching someone that they framed.
Would you rather I say "That slot wasn't scummy and I have no idea why I voted it"? It was a scummy slot. People lynched it for being scummy. Wagon analysis is certainly acceptable, but I don't think it's fair to rail on Anak and KZ for pushing what was a very legitimate wagon. That's all.
Vote: JeY K