The Wander Island Incident - Night Four - Five For One [13/21]

The only good meta is that Granola and I are always unaligned, unless one of us has murderpowers, in which case we're both town on the condition that we murder each other.

I'm pretty sure that's a hypothetical Pharmacy

Yeah, but we're SCIENTISTS. Got to be prepared for everything.

granola definitely should kill me before i inevitably trust schazer over him irrationally

Anyway for my hot take, I think Granola and Schazer are both town because they're both making an effort to do provocative shit to try and drag town out of RVS.

Can I say I totally disagree with you there? Up to that point, Schazer had contributed with jokes and I'm pretty sure Granola was trying to make the 5th "3 person bandwagon" happen (behavior that I am not entirely a fan of, for the record.)

I guess they were active but it's a bit easy to be active when day one is is the utter trainwreck it always is. Didn't see anything that looked like it was them trying to pull it away from RVS.

I think you just pointed at the two most active and went "look guys I'm town I'm voicing my early town reads on day one"

I think LegendaryQ and Granola aren't partnered

What makes you think that so early?

But I also kind of want to bring attention to this! Because yeah, that's a weird thing to say as early as page 3!

So lets clarify, Vote: Sai, what do you mean by this? Does 'not partnered' mean non-aligned or something? What's the logic here?

Ooh! Actual mafia has started.

I am content to save Dini the trouble of replacement if Slorange doesn't come around.

Schazer, any commentary at this point? You still appear to be in joke-mode.

aC I regret to inform you that there drink you're holding will probably give you cancer or superpowers or both

I hope not, I specifically asked them for no hazardous/radioactive material in my cappuccino this time!

How far does this Caesar metaphor stretch? After I decide do I get mobbed by the rest of you guys?

I still don't like a D1 lynch but it's not the hill I'm going to force the discussion to die on, so... If forced to pick between the four of you right now I'd just choose randomly because nothing anyone voting for any of you has said so far has struck me as particularly substantial. The choice would basically be arbitrary since you're asking me to analyze what's mostly goofing around or responding to goofing around.

Anyway for my hot take, I think Granola and Schazer are both town because they're both making an effort to do provocative shit to try and drag town out of RVS.

Can I say I totally disagree with you there? Up to that point, Schazer had contributed with jokes and I'm pretty sure Granola was trying to make the 5th "3 person bandwagon" happen (behavior that I am not entirely a fan of, for the record.)

I guess they were active but it's a bit easy to be active when day one is is the utter trainwreck it always is. Didn't see anything that looked like it was them trying to pull it away from RVS.

I think you just pointed at the two most active and went "look guys I'm town I'm voicing my early town reads on day one"

For the record, my townread on Schazer was mostly based on their vote for Seedy in post #41, which I'm presuming was made with the same logic as my vote for them. (i.e. You can't break out of RVS until people actually have something of substance to talk about, and an early wagon fits the bill better than nothing.)

The Granola point is fair enough, but I'm a bit more willing to give him some leeway re: "trying to keep town in RVS mode" accusations since that was his third vote in less than two pages, which doesn't really match with someone trying to keep a low profile and not push the day forward.

How far does this Caesar metaphor stretch? After I decide do I get mobbed by the rest of you guys?

I still don't like a D1 lynch but it's not the hill I'm going to force the discussion to die on, so... If forced to pick between the four of you right now I'd just choose randomly because nothing anyone voting for any of you has said so far has struck me as particularly substantial. The choice would basically be arbitrary since you're asking me to analyze what's mostly goofing around or responding to goofing around.

Oop, there he is. Never mind my suggestion. And I essentially agree: 90% of discussion at this point has been goofing around and I don't expect to find any great nuggets of truth in it.

That was actually my second post of the day, Q.

That was actually my second post of the day, Q.

Then I'm blind.

For the record, my townread on Schazer was mostly based on their vote for Seedy in post #41, which I'm presuming was made with the same logic as my vote for them. (i.e. You can't break out of RVS until people actually have something of substance to talk about, and an early wagon fits the bill better than nothing.)

You think that holds with the followup votechange?

For the record, my townread on Schazer was mostly based on their vote for Seedy in post #41, which I'm presuming was made with the same logic as my vote for them. (i.e. You can't break out of RVS until people actually have something of substance to talk about, and an early wagon fits the bill better than nothing.)

The Granola point is fair enough, but I'm a bit more willing to give him some leeway re: "trying to keep town in RVS mode" accusations since that was his third vote in less than two pages, which doesn't really match with someone trying to keep a low profile and not push the day forward.

I think the vote on seedy at #41 was still RVS but I guess I can concede that you have a point there

I still don't buy your Granola argument though! Honestly I think Granola was just trying to give off the illusion activity, by flipping their vote all over the damn place in such a meaningless fashion.

Just don't like it whenever someone goes "here's my town reads" without adding any kind of scum reads I guess. Too 'safe' and easy to make it look like you're contributing. Because no-one's going to challenge you on calling them a townie.

Currently feeling slightly iffy about you Coldblooded and Granola. Take that for what you will.

Both Airey and Acio were examples of 'throws down a vote and immediately slinks off again'. I'm not saying Airey and Acio also did this bad thing, but that the bad thing doesn't exist at all.

If Numbers wanted to support a bandwagon, they should have put their vote on one of the other 2 existing wagons with 3 votes on them, rather than bring another wagon to 3. As a potential scum tactic, it has only risk and no reward.

Far more likely is that these behaviors show nothing about Numbers and they were just making a joke.

Hey can you clarify this? It reads like you're saying that you think numbers puffing another bandwagon would have been a bad scum tactic? Or that supporting one of the larger ones would have?

I meant that adding to another bandwagon would be a bad scum tactic, yes.

If their goal was to avoid attention D1 they could have just Not Done That without any sort of risk. If their goal was to further a D1 lynch, they would have picked either of the two wagons with 3 votes.

speaking of which

Unvote because I don't think anyone's gonna take the blatantly obvious bait of voting on Justice

I was simply making a joke; most of the posts on D1 were joking anyway. It's not like I'm going to seriously vote and not give the reason for it.

speaking of which

Unvote because I don't think anyone's gonna take the blatantly obvious bait of voting on Justice

I don't understand this at all. What were you waiting for?

To clarify #119, are you talking about this:

We're playing a game would you like to join us

it's fun, see, watch what happens when I do this:
Lynch: Justice Watch

Because guess what happened right after.

Show Content

Spoiler

Lynch Justice Watch in lieu of their suspicious mop

Oh and, speaking of scumtells just a few posts ago, Not The Author seems kind of suspicious, as they voted quite early and then said literally nothing, not even in a joking matter.
Therefore, Switch vote to Not The Author

I meant that adding to another bandwagon would be a bad scum tactic, yes.

If their goal was to avoid attention D1 they could have just Not Done That without any sort of risk. If their goal was to further a D1 lynch, they would have picked either of the two wagons with 3 votes.

Palamedes, CB, Blazer opinions on this?

I'm reading it kind of like, town blind? This feels a bit too hardheaded and ignores obvious scenarios that scum would be more conscious of before they'd say anything.


Reyweld you got an opinion on schazers first vote on seedy?

Schazer, any commentary at this point? You still appear to be in joke-mode.

D1 is a farce. Q is observant. Welcome to hell

Doing a bit of review now we've got some posts worth looking at.

RVS seems to end more-or-less at #88.

Those who posted RVS-like posts beyond that point are Airey, Schazer, Pharmacy, Solaris, and AC. Note that I don't find this as a compelling reason to vote anyone or even that much of a tell if at all by itself, but a nice "hmm" to look at later.

I don't understand this at all. What were you waiting for?

Oh, I meant that whoever was going to be the 3rd vote on Justice would cause the 5th 3-vote bandwagon and would have probably been ripped into for it and that would have provoked some interesting responses and drag us out of RVS

it's kinda pointless now and it's also now blatantly obvious bait that no-one's gonna dive in on unless it's for a joke and I'd rather not have the conversation derailed by a joke

Palamedes, CB, Blazer opinions on this?

uhh

I think it would be a bad scum tactic, yes?

I kinda get the feeling that scum is being overly paranoid on Day 1 because of the possibility that "anything they might say might come back to bite them" and therefor be trying their best to not pull attention to themselves.