oooooh, a full case on me! delayed my response to this because there was actual work to be done, since apparently when I defend myself I get called out for not solving lol, but now I got time to address this, and hooooo boy is it going to be fun! Or excruciating. Maybe both!
The Summary of the Case On Eph
Obviously I think#
#VOTE: Ephemera is the best elimination today. There are legitimate, alignment-indicative scumtells on them, unlike Celever's wagon which is a lynch-a-lurker in disguise. Eph's flip will also give plenty of information as Eph has direct and strong ties with basically everyone.
@Ephemera, I'd appreciate it if you respond asap - even if there's not that much detail in your initial post
The scumtells:
- Eph consistently provided no tangible evidence, tells or objective reasoning for their townreads and scumreads. These reads cannot be questioned or debated, so it discredits players and generates distrust in them without having to give evidence.
Evidence: Eph refers to "tone" 7 times throughout the first 24 hours before they got called out on it. Said "there must be scum in the group of 4 voting me"
and took 68+ hours to find enough evidence to build a case on one of them. Eph first mentioned the four here [#83 or #120], and took until [#225] to build a case.
- Closely related, how a person reads Eph seems to affect how Eph reads that person. This combined with the lack of tangible reasoning suggests an agenda. Scum want to make friends with the people already vouching for them, and want to scumread those who scumread them(as they are not of any use to the mafians (this is OMGUS). Scum run a smear campaign against the players who scumread them (see above).
Evidence: When Amici townread Eph, Eph townread Amici right back. When Vom, bbn and Cel scumread Eph, Eph scumread immediately afterwards. When Vom reduced their pressure on Eph, Eph weakened their scumread on Vom. Why this coincidence?
- Eph flip-flopped through the four people that voted them, which means Eph had no evidence from the start on those people. This means Eph decided that one of those four are scum, and then tried to wedge evidence and tells to fit that narrative. This also suggests an agenda (i.e. discrediting those pressuring them).
Evidence: Just take a look at Eph's vote progression: from bbninjas [#120] --> Megapod [#123] --> Celever [#162], and anyone reading the thread would know that this flip-flopping is not just in votes. (There was no non-RVS vote on Vom from what I can see, but anyone reading the thread would know that Eph has been moving in and out with Vom throughout the entire day.)
- Other tells which I don't think are as significant, but other people might think they are: lots of WIFOM (wine, or "what ifs"), getting defensive after very little pressure, redirecting attention towards the four (sometimes instead of responding to the main points from those people)
tl;dr
- Coincidental reads: Eph's reads consistently lacked tangible evidence to back them up, lack of evidence suggests an agenda
- Agenda: Eph consistently discredited / smeared the people who voted for them
- Flip-flopping: Eph flipflopped between the four people who voted for them, scum-reading them first and finding evidence second
- Minor tells: WIFOM, gets defensive easily, redirecting attention
sup bb. first things first, gonna ask: if you succeed on this elim on me, and I flip green, which unsuspecting town you gonna flip to next?
1.
love the way you take my early tone reads and spin them so that it looks like that's the only thing I ever post. discrediting > solving right here.
68+ hours before building a case? First off, really doubt that, given I was the one posting my reads lol. There are so many things wrong with this time-based read lol.
For the first day, I spent time trying to spark discussion and chaos. Snapreads were all i could give, what did you want then, a wallpost on how Lily's two posts showed she's town?
Next day, I had to spend a
lot of time defending myself, since if i left those unaddressed, my cases would all be discredited. I also showed evidence, thank you for conveniently never mentioning that yay.
Now, I've built cases. I've put reads lists. I interact with almost everyone. Where are your reads?
god i hate how you want me to make full-on cases with so few posts to go on lol
2.
agenda, hm? If I had an agenda with that discrediting I certainly failed.
My snapreads were never meant to be permanent, I simply based them on tone initially. I later found most of my content/motivation reads to be similar, but I myself said my snapreads weren't good. How is that discrediting anyone effectively lol.
On your side you have building up a wagon, distancing from said wagon, then discrediting everyone who got on it. A much better planned discrediting than what I've supposedly done. Has an agenda to push – get three (3!!!) people's reads discredited so town solving D1 is hampered and distracted – which is a much clearer scum agenda than anything you can say about me.
3.
scum-reading first and finding evidence second? lol this really is a more effective smear campaign than anything you say I've been doing.
When I read posts, I don't stop and compile each post individually and analyze them immediately. I read the whole thread, dang it, and all the general ideas I've been getting from people's posts I place in the thread. If significant enough, I go back later on and compile the specific messages. Spelling out my process is fun yay (the things I do for mafia...)
love how that's spun into fabricating evidence yay.
oh yeah, the flip-flopping too. lol expecting me to 100% stick to my snapreads which i knew were bad
4.
WIFOM is NAI, and you've been doing a bit of it yourself lol.
Getting defensive and redirecting I've already addressed: I love the attention but if that's all that happens today D1's been wasted.
