UzayAltay wrote:Wabbit If I had thought You as >scum I would say. Seriously Why you would thought If I made A similar mistake?
if you have no valid conclusion from your excessive nitpicking of said list then why bother mentioning it multiple times unless of course you just wanted to shade me
No I have a decisive conclusion. Your that reads shouldn't be followed.
Or More clearly, I didnt wanna discredit You, I wanna discredit your reads.
SparkingJayYT wrote:fyi this is the 3cheers slip that feels very disingenuous:
3cheersforidiots wrote:
ScarredSamurai wrote:
TheWabbit wrote:
ScarredSamurai wrote:Pretty sure its just Citizens. And Goons are considered "Non Cits" But that doesnt stop them from claiming PR in a 1 for 1. With lack of Vigi in this setup it's gonna be painful dealing with these 1 for 1's.
that's what lynches are for? vig is likely to fuck over town with hero shooting anyway
Eh, good point. Vigis should always shoot within the PoE to help solve. But im saying we lynch one and shoot the other during the night instead of wasting a day of solving when we can just lynch a lock-scum.
wait, is there a Vigi in the setup? I'm pretty sure there is no vigi in the setup don't go confusing me
Beofre that post they acknowledged only 1 KP with this post: Spoiler:
3cheersforidiots wrote:
TheWabbit wrote:
SparkingJayYT wrote:This game is going to be very hard to solve with no kill credits, prepare yourselves.
Ah yes, disabling kill credit when there can only be one kill source.
the horror
>bad read Seriously Why This is considered as A slip when 3 cheers Said " I'm pretty sure there is no vigi in the setup" ?
TheWabbit wrote:What makes hypoclaiming a good strategy for this setup?
We start with 4 PRs , e.g. 4 Roles that If Mafia cant kill , they'll eithers confirm self or Mafia needs to cc. Visitors are A bit More compliated Because Mafia claiming there gives 2/1 odds but still , It's unpreferable for Mafia . The point of hypos are , A citcheck of Neo is locktown. So even If Mafia manages to kill Neo somehow, that conftowns can hurt them hard.
An example situation to Show that :
D1 citlynch n1 visitorkill d2 citlynch n2 jkkill d3 citlynch n3 neokill -> 4v3 with 2 confcit and 1 visitor.
Cool.
We're not hypoclaiming then.
Why??? Look, I chose an example situation that's bad for us ( Mafia kill PR Each night, cit is lynched every day) but still, end is 33% mechanichal WR.
Wabbit SR's you. He will not follow your hypoclaim strat assuming you are scum and it will benefit the scum faction.
Than can You explain that to them? I think they Dont SR You. Unless You disagree, ofc.
top bracket's core middle are those who haven't checked in bottom ring is PoE
Bolded are people posted before that post Not-bolded are people havent posted before that post. Wabbit?
Why is that important?
(Big)
maybe they didn't talk enough so Wabbit put them there?
Not possible. Hello had only 2 posts at that moment. I only had 1 . 3cheers , read First page to see How much they have at least.
yeah, but my three posts were completely NAI, as were Hello's posts you could argue that your own RVS vote was NAI, but there has since been a discussion about it, which means hindsight
/vote 3cheers It's clear You are trying to defend something without Having any information on it. They literally thought Hello is towny Because that posts.
SparkingJayYT wrote:fyi this is the 3cheers slip that feels very disingenuous:
3cheersforidiots wrote:
ScarredSamurai wrote:
TheWabbit wrote:
ScarredSamurai wrote:Pretty sure its just Citizens. And Goons are considered "Non Cits" But that doesnt stop them from claiming PR in a 1 for 1. With lack of Vigi in this setup it's gonna be painful dealing with these 1 for 1's.
that's what lynches are for? vig is likely to fuck over town with hero shooting anyway
Eh, good point. Vigis should always shoot within the PoE to help solve. But im saying we lynch one and shoot the other during the night instead of wasting a day of solving when we can just lynch a lock-scum.
wait, is there a Vigi in the setup? I'm pretty sure there is no vigi in the setup don't go confusing me
oh yeah, sure it'd only be a slip if there was a vigi in the game, and it'd slip me not!vigi so it's not a slip and therefore NAI
~Trash
Sophisticatedly unsophisticated Sophie.
Other gamertags are papill0n and luciolebrillant, dependent on game launcher.
SparkingJayYT wrote:fyi this is the 3cheers slip that feels very disingenuous:
3cheersforidiots wrote:
ScarredSamurai wrote:
TheWabbit wrote:
ScarredSamurai wrote:Pretty sure its just Citizens. And Goons are considered "Non Cits" But that doesnt stop them from claiming PR in a 1 for 1. With lack of Vigi in this setup it's gonna be painful dealing with these 1 for 1's.
that's what lynches are for? vig is likely to fuck over town with hero shooting anyway
Eh, good point. Vigis should always shoot within the PoE to help solve. But im saying we lynch one and shoot the other during the night instead of wasting a day of solving when we can just lynch a lock-scum.
wait, is there a Vigi in the setup? I'm pretty sure there is no vigi in the setup don't go confusing me
Beofre that post they acknowledged only 1 KP with this post:
3cheersforidiots wrote:
TheWabbit wrote:
SparkingJayYT wrote:This game is going to be very hard to solve with no kill credits, prepare yourselves.
Ah yes, disabling kill credit when there can only be one kill source.
the horror
i dont see how thats disingenuous, they previously believed there was no vigilante and then had their belief questioned by what ScarredSamurai said. i also dont see how 3cheers as either alignment would benefit by being disingenuous here.
"ah the horror of 1 KP with killcred" --2 seconds later... "wOAh vIGi eXiSt?!"
I shouldn't have to answer why attempting to townslip is beneficial
it's not even a townslip though it's a dumbslip, for all it's worth
~Trash
Sophisticatedly unsophisticated Sophie.
Other gamertags are papill0n and luciolebrillant, dependent on game launcher.
SparkingJayYT wrote:Clear uncertainty of a Vigilante existing in the setup whilst acknowledging 1 KP is in game, jesus christ
Scum are more likely to pay attention to the setup to strategize thus meaning they know Vigilante can't roll.
they still acted like they were fairly sure a vigilante didnt exist. you can be close to certain of something at one point and have your certainty be questioned when someone else challenges your belief with certainty - power of conformity.
if mafia was going to go for a "town slip", wouldnt they go for something more clearly indicative, rather than going for a mistake that mafia could also fairly easily make? i think you are also overestimating how likely it is that mafia makes strategies based upon the setup this early in the game, though i dont entirely disagree.
:narrowed eyes:
~Trash
Sophisticatedly unsophisticated Sophie.
Other gamertags are papill0n and luciolebrillant, dependent on game launcher.
dota2reporter wrote:ok good point, didn't see such a long pause between the first and second post
what about my first point tho
I don't see it. Like I cant see anyone Who would Do something when I wrote 3cheers cannot Do it Because I wrote instead.
ok you're chill /unvote
i knew my point was already incorrect from the start since it's just an rvs vote, i just wanted to see your responses
actually yeah, I like this post from Crimson
Can I ask Why? That seems completely off-context to me.
pointed out the backtrack-y nature of dota's post (obvs I had to remove the actual image which was the post itself, so that might cause confusion) I thought that had a good sentiment
~Trash
Sophisticatedly unsophisticated Sophie.
Other gamertags are papill0n and luciolebrillant, dependent on game launcher.
top bracket's core middle are those who haven't checked in bottom ring is PoE
Bolded are people posted before that post Not-bolded are people havent posted before that post. Wabbit?
Why is that important?
(Big)
maybe they didn't talk enough so Wabbit put them there?
Not possible. Hello had only 2 posts at that moment. I only had 1 . 3cheers , read First page to see How much they have at least.
yeah, but my three posts were completely NAI, as were Hello's posts you could argue that your own RVS vote was NAI, but there has since been a discussion about it, which means hindsight
/vote 3cheers It's clear You are trying to defend something without Having any information on it. They literally thought Hello is towny Because that posts.
did I make that read because of Hello's first posts? omegalul three cheers to me not paying any attention
~Trash
Sophisticatedly unsophisticated Sophie.
Other gamertags are papill0n and luciolebrillant, dependent on game launcher.
SparkingJayYT wrote:Clear uncertainty of a Vigilante existing in the setup whilst acknowledging 1 KP is in game, jesus christ
Scum are more likely to pay attention to the setup to strategize thus meaning they know Vigilante can't roll.
they still acted like they were fairly sure a vigilante didnt exist. you can be close to certain of something at one point and have your certainty be questioned when someone else challenges your belief with certainty - power of conformity.
if mafia was going to go for a "town slip", wouldnt they go for something more clearly indicative, rather than going for a mistake that mafia could also fairly easily make? i think you are also overestimating how likely it is that mafia makes strategies based upon the setup this early in the game, though i dont entirely disagree.
:narrowed eyes:
?
slightly opportunistic, that last sentence piece defends me but leaves space to later turn it around, if need be
~Trash
Sophisticatedly unsophisticated Sophie.
Other gamertags are papill0n and luciolebrillant, dependent on game launcher.
UzayAltay wrote:/vote 3cheers It's clear You are trying to defend something without Having any information on it. They literally thought Hello is towny Because that posts.
what. :L
What's The problem?
i dont understand how they are defending anything. i am confused.
They were clearly defending against my argument. Like I Dont know How can I explain it was A defend.
UzayAltay wrote:/vote 3cheers It's clear You are trying to defend something without Having any information on it. They literally thought Hello is towny Because that posts.
what. :L
What's The problem?
i dont understand how they are defending anything. i am confused.
They were clearly defending against my argument. Like I Dont know How can I explain it was A defend.
if you can't explain how it was a defense, then it wasn't a defense
~Trash
Sophisticatedly unsophisticated Sophie.
Other gamertags are papill0n and luciolebrillant, dependent on game launcher.
UzayAltay wrote:/vote 3cheers It's clear You are trying to defend something without Having any information on it. They literally thought Hello is towny Because that posts.
what. :L
What's The problem?
i dont understand how they are defending anything. i am confused.
They were clearly defending against my argument. Like I Dont know How can I explain it was A defend.
if you can't explain how it was a defense, then it wasn't a defense
top bracket's core middle are those who haven't checked in bottom ring is PoE
Bolded are people posted before that post Not-bolded are people havent posted before that post. Wabbit?
Why is that important?
(Big)
maybe they didn't talk enough so Wabbit put them there?
Not possible. Hello had only 2 posts at that moment. I only had 1 . 3cheers , read First page to see How much they have at least.
yeah, but my three posts were completely NAI, as were Hello's posts you could argue that your own RVS vote was NAI, but there has since been a discussion about it, which means hindsight
/vote 3cheers It's clear You are trying to defend something without Having any information on it. They literally thought Hello is towny Because that posts.
did I make that read because of Hello's first posts? omegalul three cheers to me not paying any attention
UzayAltay wrote:/vote 3cheers It's clear You are trying to defend something without Having any information on it. They literally thought Hello is towny Because that posts.
what. :L
What's The problem?
i dont understand how they are defending anything. i am confused.
They were clearly defending against my argument. Like I Dont know How can I explain it was A defend.
if you can't explain how it was a defense, then it wasn't a defense
So You say You didnt defend Wabbit's reads?
honestly I don't even remember Wabbit's earlier reads, except that there was some discussion about his nulls being wacky also you trying to bait me into contradicting myself is a noble attempt but futile
~Trash
Sophisticatedly unsophisticated Sophie.
Other gamertags are papill0n and luciolebrillant, dependent on game launcher.
UzayAltay wrote:/vote 3cheers It's clear You are trying to defend something without Having any information on it. They literally thought Hello is towny Because that posts.
what. :L
What's The problem?
i dont understand how they are defending anything. i am confused.
They were clearly defending against my argument. Like I Dont know How can I explain it was A defend.
if you can't explain how it was a defense, then it wasn't a defense
So You say You didnt defend Wabbit's reads?
honestly I don't even remember Wabbit's earlier reads, except that there was some discussion about his nulls being wacky also you trying to bait me into contradicting myself is a noble attempt but futile
TBH I was expecting a Yes and Than I would put The posts and would ask whether it is A defend again but that works, too. It is A clear defend, Because my argument was "they put not-existant line existant players" and You answered with "They might be NAI , while your only post (q>q argument) is deemed as AI by Wabbit."