Someone has to.
1 Like
Let’s corrdct my vote here before I head out for the time being. VOTE: lo-1
bro this thing is useless 99% of the time.
just pisses me off on the radio
like yes I know this link was already posted, I’m the one who posted it
anyways I’m trying to read up rq
here’s the sheet thus far
(Posts since last replaces Page because it feels weird having nothing there)
Beacuse this is forum mafia we don’t push people on one singular thing from the first hours if we want to catch mafia, which is what you are doing
I can give past games if you’re really that hung up on meta
Leafia is playing so differently I am kind of inclined to think she’s out of her town meta
I am bamboozled
3 Likes
Im admittedly still at a loss when it comes to lo-1 agree there was a possibility to push me there that wasn’t taken but whenever I look at their posts it just feels like its built on ideas somewhere down the line that I have trouble accepting which particularly makes it hard to read them (even seperating out omgus tendencies)
Do you have a read on gummy?
I thought something like this might happen. That’s why I dedicated a whole post to clarifying where precisely I stood with my reads. Does that not influence you? What about the post I made townreading Gummy?
1 Like
I… what?
You’re saying that a wolfread from the start of the game is invalid because it’s from the start of the game? That doesn’t make any sense.
It feels like this is a response to pressure even though not a single player as far as I’m aware has voiced agreement for how I read you. It feels more like an attack on my accuracy than anything but I’m going to assume that’s unintentional.
Unless you’re trying to say that reads would be less accurate at the start of the game, which is a common take that I’m not sure is true.
Anyway, I find this to be a weird reaction under pressure. Not inherently wolfy. Just… strange in a way where I’m not sure what to do with it.
From what I hear, it sounds like Leafia’s also out of her wolf meta.
So for me, I’m just going to read her ignoring meta unless it becomes more relevant later.
1 Like
This post is townie but I’m going to raise the bar for you. I’ve seen wolves take the lead with the creating content guise and do reaction fishing or otherwise baiting players for content and get crazy levels of town points for it.
So while I won’t deny that generating content helps town’s win condition, I would like to see your reads on this content before I townread you.
1 Like
I don’t know where you’re getting this from - could you show me/explain?
This makes complete sense? I think there’s several issues at play here though.
- The read just hasn’t been updated, chomps hasn’t seen anything else he wants to push on
- Just in general things that happen later on are often going to be more important when it comes to making reads than things that happen earlier because there’s more pressure on both sides to be solving/blending in, while there’s also more information to make those reads on so there’s more responsibility
- like this is the whole point of ‘RVS’ in that you force reads based on smaller points in order to generate a larger discussion, it is quite helpful to drop these later on as more evidence comes to light/etc.
(on that note I don’t really like Daeron’s response.)
1 Like
I’m saying it doesn’t make sense because it’s attacking all reads made at the start of the game and classifying them as useless or useless-adjacent without discrimination. Meanwhile, I fully believe entrance reads and the like are valid reads to make.
I think that the information does improve the further in the game you go, yes. I don’t think that inherently makes early reads pointless.
I believe the basis for my suspicion on chomps is valid. This is something which chomps themselves seemed to have agreed with, or at the very least confirmed that I had reason to think what I was thinking:
Could you elaborate on this? I find myself reading this post as you quoting Gummy making a read and explicitly underlining it, but hopping on the wagon anyway.
I mean ok there’s a couple of things beforehand; I mean in a way some of the posts I skimmed over do remind me of my own strategy (keeping some things hidden, trying not to influence myself)
also your reading of gummy’s posts is quite odd, you skip to “ah gummy would think that post looks performative as wolf” which I don’t really think is true; and you say that her post about being town was related to her previous post about sniping me which is ??? highly questionable to me.
But like I mean for one thing My quote was “I feel like I’ve been posting townily” which expresses a degree of uncertainty even ignoring that I am largely trying to get gummy to generate her own hypothesis (I found it more helpful to state my own first because otherwise you run the risk of “ah I don’t have any opinion” while… actually I’ll try and form a full response but you’re poking at me in angles that I’m not prepared for: I obviously had a greater insight into my alignment and also how much that was affecting me, at SoD (less so now, maybe later), I was a lot more energetic about things, which I felt I would not be
Admittedly I’m also kind of on edge because (I need you to take this in the best faith you can; if you want I can search for examples but this happens to me as town sometimes, and it rarely goes well as you can imagine) I do not fully remember my reasoning (specifically on why I had myself as town) though in this case I have more information to the point that I can re-construct things. But then it becomes odd that you are pushing on this, when to me it just doesn’t come across as significant, like the hypothesis you propose is that I am, to steelman, trying to take control of the thread narrative around my slot which I just don’t see how i’d feel the need to do here. I always let the narrative speak for itself.
Oh right I do think me questioning neon on how to read him was towny in that (admittedly this all comes from me-side more than the post itself, which inherently makes a lot of this difficult to argue. I didn’t feel a reason to say “hey neon, for the purposes of not getting you mishanged, how can I read you”) I am trying to prevent v!neon from potentially being mishanged early on or just straggling on for a while. I can also make an argument that my first post wound up being towny along the lines of “I don’t show this degree of self-conciousness right away; and my post reflects more being repeatedly pushed for things and trying to set up responses so as to not re-tread ground rather than to defend myself”) but I do not care to discuss opener reads.
I admittedly got lost in the weeds of this post and also couldn’t find the main other post that was giving me this impression so those two line up nicely.
(I do tend to agree that you end up just fencesitting with no real point a lot of the time (but I see where the ‘ah you are just being cautious’ motivation comes in from). But also there’s just something weird tonally.
Like you explain what the purpose of this post is within the post and I’m still lost as to why you think this is a notable thing to say; 9v2 is pretty good (ok i think this is factually a lie in that people say 11v2 is balanced these days but 3 mishangs isn’t terrible), that is how games are lost most often (though not always??) but there’s also not much to do about it on an individual level. like a lot of this I’m guessing is just severe culture clash as to what is or isn’t valuable here.
I mean this is also kind of a read thing, I think it’s not even that you don’t have the context it’s that she didn’t explain it well the first time which makes it make sense to elaborate more?? Like it is in wolf’s best interest to not lie about meta when they can’t get away with it.
1 Like
are you still basing your suspicion on chomps not describing his meta, because if so I don’t really think that’s valid, people have various reasons for not sharing their meta (most often not knowing it) and just because the behavior overlaps, doesn’t mean it is wolf-indicative.