@IB: I'm not sure if your misinterpretation of what I said is willful to derail my point
Smear.
Accusation of smearing as means of self-defense by cutting a sentence in two, which ends being a smear on itself. And yes, I'm still accusing you of derailing the matter since you refuse to acknowledge or explain the apparently scummy behaviour I and others notice in you.
or you just didn't understand me, but I'm leaning towards the former which lines up with the scummy behaviour that others and I have pointed in the past.
So why say this? Just to smear me?
Just to show how a previous vague leaning was realized into full-fledged suspicion. Note that by including this in the paragraph, I allowed room for hesitation because as much as I suspect you I can't tell I'm 100% sure you are scum, nor I think anyone can say that of anyone in this game. I'm quite convinced myself but I'm open to change my mind with sufficient evidence. This post of yours is all the opposite of mind-changing evidence, by the way.
But for clarification, I wasn't ignoring the fact that you were already voting for me. I just hadn't linked that fact with scummy behaviour because it occurred at a fairly early point in the game without any strong reasoning.
Aside from your scummy "I'm going to vote whoever votes me."
How's that exactly scummy? Other players have pointed that if any, that kind of paranoia is more likely to be noob-town tell, not to mention that -as I've explained and everyone else but you understood- I and other noobs were sure we were still at the RSV stage so it was a jokey approach to choose my first vote since I didn't know anyone here to poke with a vote. Why do we have to go all over this again?
It was your dogged and continuous "/barn on the latest noob-bashing trend for a chance at an easy lynch that several people will agree on" behaviour what finally made me decide that you're most likely scum.
Not quite. Let's have this conversation.
You are a noob. We all know this. You made it apparent. Then you harped on it. Then you used it as an excuse. Then you continued to say "sorry if I'm scummy guys, I'm just a noob." To me, that is a scumtell. I can find countless meta arguments where noob scum get off by saying "sorry, guys. I'm just a noob". You continuing to push the fact that you're a noob and attempting to paint me scummy for it just seals the deal.
If I were pushing a noob for noobishness, it would be Kank or PG, for the record. You're being pushed for harping on how much of a noob you are.
Emphasis mine. I think you got me here man, because while it's true that I have continuously reminded people that I'm a noob (chiefly to try to defuse the knee-jerk anger focused on me when I'm asking the most harmless questions) I don't remember using that fact as an excuse... except when I was directly attacked for being a stupid noob and, this is super important, not for being (apparently) scum. Please do present all these quotes you mention of me excusing scummy behavior on my noobness to refresh my memory on those italicised accusations. Please do make sure of explaining how what I'm excusing myself for is actually scummy behaviour, too. Thanks.
Lastly, for the record, if your read carefully the post where I voted for you, I explained my valid reasons (which, as stated above, you keep refusing to even acknowledge) to do so. Accusing me of voting retaliatory (specially since I refrained from doing so against the one originally attacking me, Kahedron) is such a scumtell desperate attempt to discredit my vote and divert my accusations, that I almost facepalmed.
I'm calling it right now- worst rare in the set. Even good limited players will find better bombs at common and uncommon no sweat. Worst. Episode. Ever.
I really do predict this to be our worst rare in set award winner. I'd be happier opening a jar of eyeballs, so I think anything worse is highly unlikely. This card wont just have zero constructed potential, but not be significantly better than a mass of ghouls in a draft.
Part of the reason why you are currently getting attacked is your chronology is way off.
IB First attacks you in post 75 [url=http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=9277600&postcount=75]here[/url]
[url=http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=9277628&postcount=76]Post 76[/url] I ask the why he as voted you for.
[url=http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=9277775&postcount=78]Post 78[/url] Lamp asks why I am defending you.
A question repeated by I.Balolth in [url=http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=9277905&postcount=79]post 79[/url]
Assorted other posts from the 3 of us not completely relevant.
[url=http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=9287379&postcount=151]Post 151[/url] I vote for LampDwellr
[url=http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=9295454&postcount=231]Post 231[/url]: I lose patience with you and blast you for repeating questions that should not be asked as they can only hurt the town.
[url=http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=9295812&postcount=239]Post 239[/url] I.Baloth makes a very brief summary post. Including the line:
[quote]
Maokun is playing the noob card too hard and doesn't look town at all to me.[/url]
[url=http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=9296087&postcount=241]post 241[/url] You respond to me with the start of your warped timeline and stick vote on I.Baloth because he has followed me onto your bandwagon.
Every single post you have made since post 241 has been attempting to portray a scenario that is not backed up by the facts. Those being that I.Baloth has not followed me anywhere and in fact I initially questioned his actions.
Far from it at this point I have no plans on voting for you this or any other day as I currently believe that you are a vanilla town who is unfortunately overwhelmed by the size and complexity if the game and I would much rather we used our first days lynch actually hitting scum. Though I retain the right to lynch you as the least bad option if we get anywhere near a deadline with a no-lynch.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
Part of the reason why you are currently getting attacked is your chronology is way off.
IB First attacks you in post 75 [url=http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=9277600&postcount=75]here[/url]
[url=http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=9277628&postcount=76]Post 76[/url] I ask the why he as voted you for.
[url=http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=9277775&postcount=78]Post 78[/url] Lamp asks why I am defending you.
A question repeated by I.Balolth in [url=http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=9277905&postcount=79]post 79[/url]
Assorted other posts from the 3 of us not completely relevant.
[url=http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=9287379&postcount=151]Post 151[/url] I vote for LampDwellr
[url=http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=9295454&postcount=231]Post 231[/url]: I lose patience with you and blast you for repeating questions that should not be asked as they can only hurt the town.
[url=http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=9295812&postcount=239]Post 239[/url] I.Baloth makes a very brief summary post. Including the line:
[quote]
Maokun is playing the noob card too hard and doesn't look town at all to me.[/url]
[url=http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=9296087&postcount=241]post 241[/url] You respond to me with the start of your warped timeline and stick vote on I.Baloth because he has followed me onto your bandwagon.
Every single post you have made since post 241 has been attempting to portray a scenario that is not backed up by the facts. Those being that I.Baloth has not followed me anywhere and in fact I initially questioned his actions.
Far from it at this point I have no plans on voting for you this or any other day as I currently believe that you are a vanilla town who is unfortunately overwhelmed by the size and complexity if the game and I would much rather we used our first days lynch actually hitting scum. Though I retain the right to lynch you as the least bad option if we get anywhere near a deadline with a no-lynch.
I... seriously don't understand this post? I'm reading post #241 over and over to try to find this "warped timeline" you are talking of but these are the only things I said in my post:
-Rebuke at your aggressiveness
-I state that the acronyms post was only pointed to me twice (which I'll freely admit it was one too many) and that you were exaggerating when you said it had been shown several times to me so I must be willfully ignorant.
-Then I point an apparent contradiction in your post where you slip an accusation of fishing trips despite fully believing that I'm an awful town noob.
-Then I wonder why would you go out of the way to cruelly point my expendability when I just had posted my own thoughts on that matter.
-Then I cast my own opinion on your allegiance based on that post.
-Then, I notice that IB popped in right after -as it's his wont- to ride on the coattails of your attack and imply that such display of noobness is scum tell. I identify that behavior as scummy itself and cast a vote.
I always referred to your latest post and the only times when I mentioned past votes is when pointing that IB has been playing an overused "maokun is playing the noob card too hard" strategy, but that doesn't concern you directly. So where's this warped timeline that I'm apparently using?
You know, after your past post I was mostly convinced that you were just elitist veteran town, though there was a chance of you being scum. However, I'm starting to notice that the real point of these posts is to subtly claim exactly that. Your posts imply "oh you are so noob that I'd lynch you even though you are town like me" which serves two purposes: First, make sure of belittling me in front of the other towns so they also eventually consider to lynch me if unsure of better options... ensuring a mislynch, which is basically a wasted Day. Second, you are cast as a town authority, wisely taking a controversial but necessary town, apparently with its best interests in mind.
So now I wonder what it's more likely for an apparently experienced player: To "lose his patience" and aggressively attack another town member; or to cleverly act that role to claim town. I'm pointing a FoS at you. Not upgrading it to a vote because you may just be elitist, thin-patienced town, but that's how I'm reading you.
I'm calling it right now- worst rare in the set. Even good limited players will find better bombs at common and uncommon no sweat. Worst. Episode. Ever.
I really do predict this to be our worst rare in set award winner. I'd be happier opening a jar of eyeballs, so I think anything worse is highly unlikely. This card wont just have zero constructed potential, but not be significantly better than a mass of ghouls in a draft.
I'm calling it right now- worst rare in the set. Even good limited players will find better bombs at common and uncommon no sweat. Worst. Episode. Ever.
I really do predict this to be our worst rare in set award winner. I'd be happier opening a jar of eyeballs, so I think anything worse is highly unlikely. This card wont just have zero constructed potential, but not be significantly better than a mass of ghouls in a draft.
You seem to be convieniently forgetting how this particualr meta got started, with Stardust voting Tom because he was acting the same whay he was in other games. What Tom is doing is pointing out that in those games, he was town, therefore Stardust's vote only makes sense if his reasoning is "Tom is acting the same as he does as town on purpose because he is scum", which is certainly not the argument.
In summary, Tom was defending against meta by pointing out the flaw with it.
This is so obvious to me, I have a hard time beliveing your not intentionally twisting it. Vote: Wrath of Dog
Wut... I was just pointing out why self-meta is bad. I was not attacking Tom. I was just calling out something he said which irritated me. As I said in my post, I don't know how it started.
Also: Bad news... I'm losing access to internet at work due to people being idiots, so I'm going to have to request replacement in this game, which is irritating.
I'm sorry guys, I was looking forward to playing in this game.
Perhaps you guys can have an Iso brought into this game at claim range
Unvote.
You don't know how it started? You mean you're too lazy to look up what happened in this 240-post game? I just reread the entire thread after being away from it for the week due to two exams, a lot of assignments, and a D&D session I ran, and I figured out how it started.
1) Stardust calls out Tom for being the same sketchy poster he was in previous games.
2) Tom says that makes no sense because, well, if he has a pattern of posting this way, why is that votable?
3) You say "SELF-META IS BAD AND YOU SHOULD FEEL BAD" or something similar
He's not self-metaing. He's not using self-meta. He's pointing out that Stardust's attack is bad. Tom sounds pretty sincere to me so far, and I've met him IRL so I think I have extra read power It sucks that you have to replace, WoD, both because you don't get to play AND because I bet we'll never get a satisfactory explanation.
Perhaps your replacement can do something to convince me they're town. Let's give them an extra incentive to work hard: Vote: WoD
Getting noob town vibes from Maokun and Kank. Maokun seems lazy (not reading the acronym/terminology thread the first time it was linked) and Kank seems overenthusiastic (the whole "how is scum split across genders" post) but they both post in what seems a sincere manner. I think anyone rereading their posts would be hard-pressed to disagree.
I'm calling BS on this. Here's what really happened:
1) Stardust knows how easily I got killed in the other games I played in with him.
2) He makes a vote on me with a terrible meta post, reasoning that I'm not smart enough to fight back and will get myself lynched.
3) I point out his mistake, and he ignores it as long as possible.
4) I tell him to stop ignoring me.
5) He posts the only thing that could possibly get him out of the situation: "haha jk guys it was just a test".
Vote: Startdust
Wow. That is not at all what I expected from you. Like... I'm just shocked.
You must be aware that your defense against my claim here was extremely obvious. Even if we take it for granted that you are playing terribly in this game (you're not), and even if I thought you were a complete idiot (I don't), I still would have expected you to come back in exactly the same way. My use of meta was not only terrible for being meta, it was terrible for coming to exactly the opposite conclusion that I should have (I should have concluded that you're town). I thought that would be obvious, especially to you (as it was).
So... Assuming you agree that it really was that obvious, that you had an easy and legit defense, that sort of knocks out number 2, and without that there's really nothing there. So where's the scum motivation? Assuming I thought lying so obviously was a good thing to try, you don't think I could have kept pushing? No one but Misting even realised that I'd lied, and he was busy with WoD.
Remember also that it wasn't just a simple test. It was trying to get some content out there from others as well. It worked to a point. This wasn't just about you.
I thought Stardust's vote on you was awkward, but being inexperienced, I assumed he knew what he was doing. Stardust seems to be gambiting (is that even a word?) on the players he knows. I don't know if he's not seen any other behaviour that strikes him or if he's just concentrating on people that he knows, so he can rule them out as targets maybe? I can't tell if he's being scummy or just trying to tread on familiar ground.
Yes, this is exactly what I'm doing. Until I can get a handle on how everyone else plays, I'm focusing more on those I know. That's why I pushed PG in the beginning too. My notes on other players are getting more detailed as we go, but I don't think I'll be ready to push on one of them for a while yet since I won't feel comfortable gauging their reaction until I'm used to them.
By the way, please don't assume I know what I'm doing! This is only my second game after all. All I know is that more content and more reactions are good for the town. One of the major things I learned my first game is that sometimes getting your name dragged through the mud can be a good thing for the team. Thought I'd take a chance and try my hand at it now that I am town. Turned out my name ended up staying clean somehow since no one focused on me, but c'est la vie.
Why bring up meta in the very first place? You said yourself that it gave me an easy out. Why not just call me out on 'floundering' and bad play? If you were truly trying to focus on me and "rule me out as a target" like you say you were, there isn't any good reason that you would intentionally give me such an easy out.
Also, your last paragraph in the above post is just awful. You pull out the noob card, and the whole thing just reads as "I'm town because look at how calm I am and I'm not afraid to get pressure on me blah blah blah." But as it is difficult to prove that the second part is just acting, let's look at the noob card. "Please don't assume I know what I'm doing! This is only my second game after all." This is like the textbook definition of a safety net. You are essentially saying: "but if the crappy reasoning I just gave you doesn't hold water, don't blame me! I'm just a noob!" Town should just be able to give their reasoning. It is scum who need the safety nets.**
Also, I'd like to point out the irony: look at how you start your previous paragraph! You say that you know exactly what you are doing!
**Note that the noob card has in fact been played several other times this game, but as far as I can tell it has only been used as an excuse for not doing things or not knowing what to do. Not as a safety net for potentially bad reasoning.
Normal Mafia games ran this year, and in every single one on Day 1, a townie was lynched. The odds are that whoever everyone jumps on today will most likely be a townie as well.
A) Interesting! I know why it'd be 75/25 or so in favor of a townie getting lynched, but why do you think it's 100%? That's a lot.
Quote from Kankennon »
I'm perfectly content with leaving my vote on the (currently) not-playing Iso.
B) I don't think "because townies usually get lynched I'm not gonna vote for anyone" is very reasonable. Townies getting lynched day one lets you check the wagon for the weakest justifications, and helps you scumhunt. It's virtually always protown to lynch SOMEBODY. I think I remember you saying you're kinda new at Mafia, is that true?
Very well, I'll stop with the jokey votes then if it's time to really start playing. Unvote Yes, this is my first official Mafia game so feel free to label me with whatever sort of noob Post-It notes you desire. Be sure not to consider me using humor or sarcasm as a tell in either direction, because that's how I always am 24/7. (Feel free to check back in any of my 10,000+ posts.) It's way too early for me to get a read on anyone yet, and no, I'm not going to jump off a bridge just because everyone else is doing it. One of my all-time pet peeves is people who commit to playing a game and then never show up to play it. With that said, I'll place my official vote on whoever shows up LAST, between Seppel and captaineddie.
C) I got no anti-noob bias; you don't look confused here. I think you'll probably be good at this game, actually. I do have anti-"please don't think I'm scummy if I do X" bias, though. And - for example - I haven't voted yet, but I'm not making a show of not voting yet. A lot of new players don't want to die early in their first game, so it could be that. On the other hand, it could be... Vote: Kankennon
Oh I totally get that me posting so much already is putting a target sign on my back, from either townies willing to jump on the Kankwagon because I seem to be so scummy, or from nervous scummers worried that I might be too active and able to root them out.
General statement is general. I get that you voted for me because I outwardly warned of my use of humor and sarcasm, which obviously means that if you use it or even warn people that you plan to use humor/sarcasm no matter what, then that also brands you as scummy, no matter what.
F) Nah, it seemed overly self-aware.
Quote from Kankennon »
Seriously, I only had like 15 minutes to check things out at the time, and I figured that checking Normal games was the best use of my time since this game has been labled a "Normal" game. If this Normal game is not actually a Normal game, then so be it. In any case, if Mafia players account for 25% of the players, then wouldn't you think they'd get hit at least 25% of the time out of the gate? All I found that it was an odd statistic that sampled a small portion of the total games played, yes. Does it have any bearing in this game? Probably not. Feel free to throw facts and statistics around however you like. I'm done looking up past game statistics and will focus my numbers on the game at hand.
G) I think looking up past game statistics is pretty interesting and informative! So did you. You depart quickly, though. Why?? I think you would expect to hit scum about 15% of the time on D1, because scum represent only 25-30% of the players and scum can also vote, which increases the likelihood of a successful townie wagon. It's hard to hit scum unless they bus. What I found interesting was the 100% part! It means that some of the things people in normals on THIS VERY FORUM are seeing as scummy probably aren't! It's still protown to vote people.
H) Your assumption that there are 6 scum and 3 are male and 3 are female seems problematic for a number of reasons. Your reasoning from it also strikes me as spurious, because the order in which you kill people matters even if you do decide that it's 90% likely the scum are half-male and half-female - which is not the case. Since we're gaming the setup a bit here, why do you think it is likely that there are an equal number of M/F scum, exactly? Hitting half the baddies in 11 lynches is pretty horrible anyway, with nightkills included! BUT ANYWAY, you're doing this thing through your posts where you're like "sorry I was really joking, sorry you couldn't tell, don't persecute me for making jokes!" If everything you say is half-serious this is a very convenient position for you, wouldn't you say?
I) Very nice catch there Kank. Lamp how do you know the lay out of the scum team?? I can think of a very good reason which leads us to vote: LampDwellr
Is there something you know about the scum splits here that the general public does not know? Just how do you know that the split isn't half and half?
Oh good heavens. Must be election season if we're quoting half-sentences now and someone else is barning it. I'll quote a little more of the sentence:
Quote from LampDwellr »
even if you do decide that it's 90% likely the scum are half-male and half-female - which is not the case.
J) It is not the case that [it is 90% likely that the scum are half-and-half], is what I was saying. An awkward sentence, but not as awkward as saying "even if you do decide that it's 90% likely the scum are half-male and half female - which is not actually the confidence interval I would assign such a circumstance." ~~~~~~ Back to the actual conversation.
Quote from Kankennon »
In all reality, the fact that I'm a jokester by nature will surely lead to my early death until people get used to me and say, "Oh that's just Kank. He does that no matter what side he's on."
K) You keep making this error where you think that people think that being silly is worth killing someone for. I don't agree. Saying stuff that's quasi-relevant and then when challenged saying "I was being silly" is the thing I was talking about. And now here's that "I will surely die" fatalism stuff. Which is another one of those quasi-scummy things.
L) I am not certain that it is not a 50/50 split. But that's not something I'd like to gamble heavy on, because I think it's more like...40% likely that it's 50/50. It could easily be an odd number of scum, especially if you have loner scums or neutrals, and if it is an even number of scum it may well not be 50/50.
Yes... you are bad at quoting... Perhaps you should proofread your posts more carefully since there was also confusion on what you meant with the slip that you knew more about the set up than you did.
I am not ever going to apologize for someone quoting a quarter of a sentence out of context and then trying to make something out of it. The person you're looking for on this "causing confusion" charge is not me. Make serious posts, not random needling.
PG is right. I was merely commenting about the people who were getting the barns on them other than myself at the time, and I couldn't see any good justification for barns on either of them. A lot has happened since then. I'd REALLY like the non-players to start playing. I'm more annoyed by players not playing than I am by LampDwellr and GrickyTimmick deciding that I'm a baddie.
Har. Draw this out to its logical conclusion: the people playing the most town are the people who do nothing to advance the plot. Ergo, nobody should advance the plot.
I think it's pretty dumb! I don't know anything about the setup. All I was saying at any point is that we CAN'T assume things about the setup, and we've got 3 people who've voted me for allegedly knowing so much about the setup. Dork Knight's vote is dumber because he somewhat apparently didn't read any of my responses at all, but Ka's came sooner and looks more like an eager "HAHA CAUGHT YOU" fallacy than Dork's.
They're both wrong, though. I don't know anything about the setup, didn't say I did, and I did say we shouldn't assume things about the setup. Good heavens.
~~~~~
Quote from "Kankennon" »
I'm noticing a pattern of LampDwellr and GrickyTimmick sharing many of the same opinions yet seemingly avoiding referencing or talking to/about each other.
Quote from "Kankennon" »
I'd really like to see them grill each other for a change and show the rest of us novices just how it's supposed to be done. I must say that I'm somewhat suspicious of a possible interconnection between them.
O)
I don't know why Gricky's not talking about me, but the reason I am not talking about Gricky is I haven't posted in a couple days. I'll get to that in my next post.
Also: I'd really like to see you not make spurious claims, but we can't always get what we want. You think there is a linkage because we both voted you at roughly the same time for a decent reason; in fact we did so because of the decent reason.
~~~~~
Quote from "Dork Knight" »
I don't like the fact that LampDwellr seems to know something about the setup that only scum could know. His backpedalling that what he wrote isn't what he meant doesn't ring true to me. It sounds like scum who said too much and got caught.
Quote from "Dork Knight" »
vote LampDwellr
Quote from "Dork Knight" »
Well, you see son, sometimes, a man has to think things over before he makes a big decision. If ya just fire up the lawnmower and have at it before you think it through, you'll never have an award winning turf.
P)
You need to think harder. I am not backpedaling. I clarified, but that is not backpedaling. I did not say that what I wrote isn't what I meant, I said the quarter-sentence that Kank posted isn't what I meant. What Kank did was the equivalent of me doing this:
Quote from "Dork Knight" »
what he wrote isn't what he meant
Q) All I was ever saying - read the whole original post - was that strategy speculations based on 3 fem and 3 male scum are not accurate. That is the theme of the entire post. I don't think it's 90% likely that half the scum are male and half are female, and that is because of reasons I already posted. I didn't say, ever, "scum definitely aren't half male and half female." This is a pretty bad vote rationale, man. Almost like, distractingly facile.
~~~~~~~~~
Quote from "GrickyTimmick" »
F. I think this is the beginning of the ties you are trying to make between me and Lampdwellr. I did think I was first, but it turns out that you are right, he was. However, my vote reasoning and analysis are completely different. I'm already knee-deep in quotes so I really don't wanna go searching for it right now, but Lamp's reasons and my reasons have nothing to do with each other from what I remember.
R)
I'm voting him because he made statements overqualifying himself and trying to pre-protect against "seeming scummy," and then said some fatalistic stuff that looked a bit noob-scummish. I think the "WAIT DID YOU SAY YOU KNOW THE SETUP" bad quote he did of me reads about 50/50 'he must be scum if he is voting me' and 50/50 'get offa me, town, I'll attack you back,' so that's a bit of a wash in my eyes.
~~~~~~~~~
Quote from "Kankennon" »
LampDwellr: How do you see GrickyTimmick’s behavior and reasoning?
S)
Gricky looks aggressive to me, which is not a way scum typically plays with a village full of new players, who often think aggression looks scummy.
These posts are so large that Kank and Gricky are town.
My read is usually that scum care more. What's your reasoning?
I take it that this is your first game with Seppel .This is vaguely normal for him. At some point he may come back and give us some reasoning for this.
U) No it's fine that he said that, I just want to hear more about it. I'm not mad the post was short or whatever.
A) In whose math book does “most likely” equal 100%? Never once did I guess or state that it was a sure thing (100% chance) that a townie would get lynched, only that whoever got lynched day 1 would “most likely” be town. B) I’d much rather do as careful of an analysis as possible Day 1 than just go crazy and quickly lynch somebody on pure speculation and hope to see what can be garnered from their death. Obviously somebody has to die day 1 or else the day ends in a no lynch and the scum get a free kill. I get that. I just think it’s smarter to do as much research as possible first than try to speed through it. I would imagine that a quick barn of someone would turn up much less useful information, because the scum players would be happy to see a townie die quickly, yet would likely go out of their way to stall a lynch if the sights are on a known scum buddy (unless their stalling would be super obvious). C) I was hoping I could be sillier than I am and have been recently, but I get that it would only be detrimental to the game and confuse people, possibly leading them down the wrong path(s). Lesson learned. D) I’m not going to have time to research past games anymore. Just this reread here is going to take me at least an hour. E) LampDwellr was surprisingly vague on exactly why he voted for me actually. F) Overly self aware? LampDwellr voted for me because I talk about myself all the time and/or warn others of my possible naughty behavior? Well, I can’t deny that. I do that every waking hour of the day. If you’re interested, there’s a whole back story why gets you while you’re at it. G) Why did LampDwellt chide me at first for dredging up minor information from past games and then ask me why I stopped doing it. Whaaaa? H) Okay, here I said that it made sense if the (most likely 6) bad guys were evenly split among the genders, half and half. A 50/50 split made perfect sense to me, and I would feel that it would be a logical assumption based on simply the fact that the game has a pre-laid out group of players that have been made aware of each other’s gender and instructed that it matters somehow. If the players are evenly split, then why wouldn’t you think that the good/bad roles are evenly split as well? They certainly don’t have to be and very well might not be, but doesn’t logic dictate that to be the most likely scenario? What is LampDwellr’s true point here? I) Here Kahedron jumps in and votes LampDwellr. Kahedron: Could you give me a full read of LampDwellr now that there has been more said about the situation? J) LampDwellr’s restatement of what he meant by “which is not the case” is far more convoluted than it should possibly be. Notice how he made the sentence WAY more awkward instead of clarifying what he supposedly meant instead. K) Meesa gonna die? L) LampDwellr goes from completely certain that it is not 50/50, to agreeing that there might be a 40% chance of the 50/50 split. M) So, how can a person not decide if someone is bad, yet still vote for them and leave their vote on them for…how long now? N) I was not the only one that thought LampDwellr’s vague statements about setup splits were eyebrow-raising. What did I not do? I didn’t place my vote on LampDwellr. I placed a half-hearted OMGUS vote on GrickyTimmick instead and y’all saw where that went. O) Lamp & Gricky: Please state for the record why your votes are on me again if you will. I can’t be the only interested and/or forgot exactly why. P) It wasn't exactly clear what he said, was it? Q) I see a pattern of LampDwellr using completely made up statistics: 100%, 40%, 90% R) I’d like to see LampDwellr look at me through a new lens, just like I’m doing here with him. S) One of LampDwellr’s more reasonable statements I would say. T) While I’m of the belief that scum are far more likely to lurk more and only post when they feel like they can capitalize on something. U) I too would like to hear more from Seppel and everyone else for that matter.
This took me an extremely long time to go through. Kank’s final verdict on LampDwellr as of this post:
Why bring up meta in the very first place? You said yourself that it gave me an easy out. Why not just call me out on 'floundering' and bad play? If you were truly trying to focus on me and "rule me out as a target" like you say you were, there isn't any good reason that you would intentionally give me such an easy out.
Again, this isn't just about you. Specifically, that easy out wasn't for your benefit. I thought even a push that weak would be enough to get you going. Apparently I was right. The easy out was for everyone else; to see who decided to call me on it or who decided to join me in attacking you. As it is, we may have caught WoD in that trap.
Also, your last paragraph in the above post is just awful. You pull out the noob card...
That last bit was specifically replying to PG's sentence "I thought Stardust's vote on you was awkward, but being inexperienced, I assumed he knew what he was doing." If my logic is flawed at any point, I want to hear about it. If someone keeps their mouth shut and we mislynch because I'm stupid, that's bad for everybody. Or, at least, that's bad for the town.
**Note that the noob card has in fact been played several other times this game...
Also, Tom, in what posts have I played the noob card before? I couldn't remember doing that, so I just searched my own posts and came up with nothing even hinting at that. Given the circumstances, I can't help but feel that you're trying to smear me with that line.
Again, this isn't just about you. Specifically, that easy out wasn't for your benefit. I thought even a push that weak would be enough to get you going. Apparently I was right. The easy out was for everyone else; to see who decided to call me on it or who decided to join me in attacking you. As it is, we may have caught WoD in that trap.
As I've learned recently, these "traps" have a spectacularly low chance of trapping scum.
As I've learned recently, these "traps" have a spectacularly low chance of trapping scum.
Oh yeah? Like, less than 25% chance (more likely to kill town than a random lynch), or just not greater than 50%?
Either way, you'd agree that generally generating content is a good approach at least, yeah? I'm not going to ask you specifically what you'd look for, but regardless of WoD's alignment, I'm hoping some of those responses will help us out here, at least in the long run.
As I've learned recently, these "traps" have a spectacularly low chance of trapping scum.
Oh yeah? Like, less than 25% chance (more likely to kill town than a random lynch), or just not greater than 50%?
Of the 4 instances I can remember, 1 caught scum, and that scum also claimed that he was in a 3-person mason group, so I wouldn't put too much stock into that.
Either way, you'd agree that generally generating content is a good approach at least, yeah? I'm not going to ask you specifically what you'd look for, but regardless of WoD's alignment, I'm hoping some of those responses will help us out here, at least in the long run.
Yes, this is true.
Aside from WoD's reaction, what else do you feel is telling about his alignment?
Aside from WoD's reaction, what else do you feel is telling about his alignment?
Good question! You'll notice that I haven't actually voted for him yet, because I've been trying to figure out the answer to that myself for a while now. I suppose now's a good a time as any to do that PBPA I've been meaning to do. Normally I wouldn't include everything, but there's only ten posts, so bear with me.
@IB: I didn't read any more into Moakon's post than you attempting to explain away your self-voting habit thats got you into a few problems recently.
Nice smear attempt.
I self-vote. I do it in virtually every game I'm in. It's gotten me into trouble exactly once. I vote for myself during RVS because it's an easy way of checking in.
Your defense of Maokun and attempt to smear me with his scummy actions make me question your alignment pretty strongly.
Saying that is a smear attempt, is, in fact, a nice smear attempt.
Unvote, Vote IB
Vote for IB, for what seems a reasonable reason given that we're barely out of RVS at this point.
Eron why the vote? Despite having a quote that is ultimately a barn to move the game on a bit your vote is nude. Of the pair why did you go for I.Baloth who merely agreed with the sentiment as opposed to Wessel who suggested it.
I can answer this, but I won't, since you addressed it to Eron.
Maybe someone with more experience can say whether this is generally considered scummy or what, but I dislike it when people do this. Town points for free, while not committing yourself to anything at all. Boo.
Triple post because I didn't quote WoD: Do you disagree with me? Is Kahedron bringing up my history of self-voting not a smear when it has nothing to do with the issue at hand?
That wasn't why I voted you.
You dismissing whatever he said about you (it was meta so I don't care if it's true or not, and have no inclination to find out... because meta is stupid) as a smear attempt is in fact smearing him, by attacking HIS credibility, by implying that he's being underhanded and trying to smear you.
Calling it a smear makes you seem jumpy, and is definitely an overreaction worth a vote.
Further explains his reasoning for the vote on IB.
I'm leaning GrickyTimmick and LampDwellr as scum on gut feeling. So don't ask for posts indicating such because it's just the feel I get from reading what they've posted thus far (so it's all their posts).
Try reading through their posts again, and quote any (or at least a couple) of their posts that gave you that feeling, then try to explain why.
"it's all their posts" is not reason enough, and it seems like you're just throwing suspicion at them without justification, which would be scummy if you weren't so new.
Asking for justification from PG and helping out a newbie. I like. And then...
Why would you make a vote on me for acting the same way I did in the two games I had with you? In both of those games I was town.
It seems like you are aware of how easily I got killed those two games and are trying to make that happen again.
Self-meta is the worst kind of meta. It's not a good defense.
(split this post into two)
Now we're into my side of things. He's pointing out the obvious, but fails to see the obvious here. Could be a slip at this point if he didn't really pay attention to what I'd written.
Does it make sense to you for person A to vote for person B based on the fact that person B's attitude is the same as it was in other games... in which person B was town?
No, it doesn't make sense for me to vote for anyone based exclusively on behaviour in past games, because meta is stupid.
And that's all I'm hearing from you here. You need to learn to defend yourself with something that isn't just "But I did it the same way this one time when I was town!"
Meta is stupid, because players play into their meta.
If a given player can play like they would as Town when in fact they are scum, and they can then point to games where they did the same "townie things" and everyone takes it as granted that they're town because they did certain "townie things they do every game", then it comes back to bite you in the ass if you give them a pass. It's even more dodgy and bad if they point to their own meta as a reason for poor play.
So, my summary is: Meta is a super weak tell at best, but if someone points to their own meta as excuse for poor play... It's lazy and no excuse for a proper defense.
Don't just say "I did it THIS WAY in that one game where I was Town". That's lazy.
Provide reasoning, tell us what you were thinking when you posted x or y. Honestly I don't even know why you are self-meta-ing right now, but it's a bad crutch for bad play.
This is Tom's "Stardust is stupid" post, which WoD essentially ignores to continue beating at Tom. This is where it's difficult to believe this was all a mistake. I don't like this post because it's so obvious that a self-meta defense is exactly what Tom required, but WoD latches on to the fact that self-meta is bad and continues the "bad play" rumour on Tom. I feel inclined to take this as him trying to build momentum against Tom, even if that momentum doesn't get used until later.
You seem to be convieniently forgetting how this particualr meta got started, with Stardust voting Tom because he was acting the same whay he was in other games. What Tom is doing is pointing out that in those games, he was town, therefore Stardust's vote only makes sense if his reasoning is "Tom is acting the same as he does as town on purpose because he is scum", which is certainly not the argument.
In summary, Tom was defending against meta by pointing out the flaw with it.
This is so obvious to me, I have a hard time beliveing your not intentionally twisting it. Vote: Wrath of Dog
Wut... I was just pointing out why self-meta is bad. I was not attacking Tom. I was just calling out something he said which irritated me. As I said in my post, I don't know how it started.
Also: Bad news... I'm losing access to internet... request replacement... looking forward to playing in this game.
His response to Misting pointing at me and voting for WoD. I dunno. Maybe he's telling the truth? I don't like that he claims to have not been attacking Tom though. I mean, it wasn't a vote, he didn't jump on her, but he did make a big post detailing why she was terrible for self-meta'ing. It's that sort of thing that can lead to a real wagon later, and I think WoD knows this.
I don't even know who he is. I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your post, as I said, I took it at face value without understanding the context and went on a bit of a rant about meta.
Reading this over, I just realised how terrible that bolded part is. So you don't know me. What's your point? I just don't understand how a mafia veteran could think this is a good argument. I can't really call this scummy though since it's terrible no matter who you are. Maybe it's an indication that he's a little too nervous about the attention, and therefore might be scummy? Not sure how to read that.
He apologizes to Tom as well... but that doesn't really mean anything at this point. The damage is done and could well be brought up again. Well, maybe not now that we've all been talking about this so much, but you know.
Last thing, perhaps the worst...
Last Activity: Today 01:06 AM
He's still around, but not answering questions. He hasn't made any posts anywhere, so maybe he's just stopping by quickly, but I don't like that he wouldn't try to help the town out with some insight before he replaces out. Then again, could be that he just doesn't really care about the game at this point.
So! To sum all that up, WoD makes some plays for easy town cred, puts out some dirt on Tom without factoring in the whole situation (and continues to do so even after being reminded), and doesn't contribute before ducking out. Nothing here is screaming scum to me, but he's been playing an easy game so far and hasn't actually worked towards finding scum since the very end of RVS. I'd say "leaning scum" at this point, but I'm not going to vote for him until he's replaced (despite wanting to kill Iso).
I really do hope WoD comes back for one last post, though. Getting those questions answered would be very helpful. Either way, hopefully his replacement can make things a little clearer one way or the other.
Hmm, fair enough. I don't know WoD's history as I've never played with him before and don't really have the desire to read through old games.
On Tom, yes, I voted for her, but not because she was acting in the same way as previous games. In fact, she was acting differently. Would you say she was floundering earlier in the game, Seppel?
In other news, Tom, as per usual, is floundering. I don't see the solid scum hunting skills that Wessel was talking about, and frankly, Tom looks like the same sketchy player that got lynched in the two games of experience I have with her. Vote: Tom.
In other news, Tom, as per usual, is floundering. I don't see the solid scum hunting skills that Wessel was talking about, and frankly, Tom looks like the same sketchy player that got lynched in the two games of experience I have with her. Vote: Tom.
...when Tom was town in those two games?
Right. I was lying. That was kinda the point. I wanted to make my argument awful.
Misting
I'm liking you as Town for your attack on WoD, though I'm also confused as to why you're not attacking Stardust for similar reasons...what do you think about Stardust?
Before the whole WoD thing, I made a note in one of my posts about Stardust, after which Stardust completely dropped the whole topic until Tom forced it. At the time of my Vote, I had assumed Stardust had dropped the topic having realized the mistake, and had forgotten about the vote like I did with Wessel. However, this is evidently not the case.
All in due time, my friend. As it happens, that time is now!
I wanted to try something. Looking at this game, the only person I have experience playing with is you. As you may be aware, your town games are quite... unique in the way you play, so I thought pushing you might give some interesting insight into your alignment. In addition to that, I thought it might be interesting to completely fabricate an argument and see what evolved from there. As it is, everything I said about you in my original response to Wessel was a lie. You've been playing well as far as I'm concerned (sorry I had to be mean), and I thought it would be exceedingly obvious that my argument was terrible, especially after you inevitably pointed out that you were town in those previous games. In a nutshell, I told an obvious lie in an attempt to generate some content, not just on you, but those who interacted with you (or me) in response to this.
As you can see, responding to your question any earlier would have kind of nulled some of my goals here. We did get some interesting stuff, but perhaps not quite as conclusive as I'd been hoping. The people involved:
#1, Tom: You reacted differently than in previous games, but not differently enough to make me feel comfortable calling you scum. Very likely you're just learning to be a better player. Good work, but you're not cleared yet. Something about you feels different, but that's just meta talking. In any case, Unvote.
#2, Wrath_of_DoG: His responses to Tom were interesting, made moreso by the fact that he pushed it even after Tom reminded him that Stardust is awful. WoD should have called me out as well (or probably just instead). Why didn't he? I don't have an answer to this question.
#3, Mistings: The only person to actually call my claim out as being terrible. Not sure what to make of that, if anything, but I get the feeling he may be on the right track voting for WoD.
#4, Eron: Seems to want to shoot Tom down in the same way that WoD did, but holds his tongue to let WoD do it instead. I get the impression that he wouldn't have mentioned me either, and that I don't like. I'll be looking forward to his next response to Tom.
#5, Kank: 196, making the comment that Tom might be replicating past behaviour to make us believe he's town. The only interesting thing here is that my terrible case is now being built up into something it's not. It's all just more meta, but now Tom's terrible play is being taken as a granted, just because I happened to say it.
I suppose that's really the most interesting thing to come out of all this. I tell a lie, no one calls me on it (except Mistings), and a case starts building based on that lie. To my fellow townies, please be more vigilant in the future. I should not have been allowed to get away with this.
I'm not a huge fan of town gambits, and I belive they should only be used in certain circumstances, this not being one of them. Especially with regards to WoD, I find these reads to be rather wishy-washy, and I don't like the ending of "My fellow townies, I should not have been allowed to do this". That last bit feels forced, which throws the motivation of the whole post into more suspicion.
I'm calling BS on this. Here's what really happened:
1) Stardust knows how easily I got killed in the other games I played in with him.
2) He makes a vote on me with a terrible meta post, reasoning that I'm not smart enough to fight back and will get myself lynched.
3) I point out his mistake, and he ignores it as long as possible.
4) I tell him to stop ignoring me.
5) He posts the only thing that could possibly get him out of the situation: "haha jk guys it was just a test".
Vote: Startdust
Wow. That is not at all what I expected from you. Like... I'm just shocked.
You must be aware that your defense against my claim here was extremely obvious. Even if we take it for granted that you are playing terribly in this game (you're not), and even if I thought you were a complete idiot (I don't), I still would have expected you to come back in exactly the same way. My use of meta was not only terrible for being meta, it was terrible for coming to exactly the opposite conclusion that I should have (I should have concluded that you're town). I thought that would be obvious, especially to you (as it was).
So... Assuming you agree that it really was that obvious, that you had an easy and legit defense, that sort of knocks out number 2, and without that there's really nothing there. So where's the scum motivation? Assuming I thought lying so obviously was a good thing to try, you don't think I could have kept pushing? No one but Misting even realised that I'd lied, and he was busy with WoD.
Remember also that it wasn't just a simple test. It was trying to get some content out there from others as well. It worked to a point. This wasn't just about you.
---
By the way, please don't assume I know what I'm doing! This is only my second game after all. All I know is that more content and more reactions are good for the town. One of the major things I learned my first game is that sometimes getting your name dragged through the mud can be a good thing for the team. Thought I'd take a chance and try my hand at it now that I am town. Turned out my name ended up staying clean somehow since no one focused on me, but c'est la vie.
I'd hardly say your name is clean, why did you think it was after such a gambit claim? And it does not knock out number 2, as you even say by pointing out that everyone else missed the extremely obvious issue with your argument. Another thing I don't like about your argument is how casually you asume that others would catch onto your argument, even before Tom revealed its flaw. How would we know it was backwards before then?
Why bring up meta in the very first place? You said yourself that it gave me an easy out. Why not just call me out on 'floundering' and bad play? If you were truly trying to focus on me and "rule me out as a target" like you say you were, there isn't any good reason that you would intentionally give me such an easy out.
Again, this isn't just about you. Specifically, that easy out wasn't for your benefit. I thought even a push that weak would be enough to get you going. Apparently I was right. The easy out was for everyone else; to see who decided to call me on it or who decided to join me in attacking you. As it is, we may have caught WoD in that trap.
Also, your last paragraph in the above post is just awful. You pull out the noob card...
That last bit was specifically replying to PG's sentence "I thought Stardust's vote on you was awkward, but being inexperienced, I assumed he knew what he was doing." If my logic is flawed at any point, I want to hear about it. If someone keeps their mouth shut and we mislynch because I'm stupid, that's bad for everybody. Or, at least, that's bad for the town.
He was saying he was inexperienced, not you. And if he was refering to you, why would you want the town to not think you knew what you were doing? As I said earlier to Kank, having everyone ignore you is not a productive place to be.
Aside from WoD's reaction, what else do you feel is telling about his alignment?
Good question! You'll notice that I haven't actually voted for him yet, because I've been trying to figure out the answer to that myself for a while now. I suppose now's a good a time as any to do that PBPA I've been meaning to do. Normally I wouldn't include everything, but there's only ten posts, so bear with me.
@IB: I didn't read any more into Moakon's post than you attempting to explain away your self-voting habit thats got you into a few problems recently.
Nice smear attempt.
I self-vote. I do it in virtually every game I'm in. It's gotten me into trouble exactly once. I vote for myself during RVS because it's an easy way of checking in.
Your defense of Maokun and attempt to smear me with his scummy actions make me question your alignment pretty strongly.
Saying that is a smear attempt, is, in fact, a nice smear attempt.
Unvote, Vote IB
Vote for IB, for what seems a reasonable reason given that we're barely out of RVS at this point.
Eron why the vote? Despite having a quote that is ultimately a barn to move the game on a bit your vote is nude. Of the pair why did you go for I.Baloth who merely agreed with the sentiment as opposed to Wessel who suggested it.
I can answer this, but I won't, since you addressed it to Eron.
Maybe someone with more experience can say whether this is generally considered scummy or what, but I dislike it when people do this. Town points for free, while not committing yourself to anything at all. Boo.
Triple post because I didn't quote WoD: Do you disagree with me? Is Kahedron bringing up my history of self-voting not a smear when it has nothing to do with the issue at hand?
That wasn't why I voted you.
You dismissing whatever he said about you (it was meta so I don't care if it's true or not, and have no inclination to find out... because meta is stupid) as a smear attempt is in fact smearing him, by attacking HIS credibility, by implying that he's being underhanded and trying to smear you.
Calling it a smear makes you seem jumpy, and is definitely an overreaction worth a vote.
Further explains his reasoning for the vote on IB.
I'm leaning GrickyTimmick and LampDwellr as scum on gut feeling. So don't ask for posts indicating such because it's just the feel I get from reading what they've posted thus far (so it's all their posts).
Try reading through their posts again, and quote any (or at least a couple) of their posts that gave you that feeling, then try to explain why.
"it's all their posts" is not reason enough, and it seems like you're just throwing suspicion at them without justification, which would be scummy if you weren't so new.
Asking for justification from PG and helping out a newbie. I like. And then...
Why would you make a vote on me for acting the same way I did in the two games I had with you? In both of those games I was town.
It seems like you are aware of how easily I got killed those two games and are trying to make that happen again.
Self-meta is the worst kind of meta. It's not a good defense.
(split this post into two)
Now we're into my side of things. He's pointing out the obvious, but fails to see the obvious here. Could be a slip at this point if he didn't really pay attention to what I'd written.
Does it make sense to you for person A to vote for person B based on the fact that person B's attitude is the same as it was in other games... in which person B was town?
No, it doesn't make sense for me to vote for anyone based exclusively on behaviour in past games, because meta is stupid.
And that's all I'm hearing from you here. You need to learn to defend yourself with something that isn't just "But I did it the same way this one time when I was town!"
Meta is stupid, because players play into their meta.
If a given player can play like they would as Town when in fact they are scum, and they can then point to games where they did the same "townie things" and everyone takes it as granted that they're town because they did certain "townie things they do every game", then it comes back to bite you in the ass if you give them a pass. It's even more dodgy and bad if they point to their own meta as a reason for poor play.
So, my summary is: Meta is a super weak tell at best, but if someone points to their own meta as excuse for poor play... It's lazy and no excuse for a proper defense.
Don't just say "I did it THIS WAY in that one game where I was Town". That's lazy.
Provide reasoning, tell us what you were thinking when you posted x or y. Honestly I don't even know why you are self-meta-ing right now, but it's a bad crutch for bad play.
This is Tom's "Stardust is stupid" post, which WoD essentially ignores to continue beating at Tom. This is where it's difficult to believe this was all a mistake. I don't like this post because it's so obvious that a self-meta defense is exactly what Tom required, but WoD latches on to the fact that self-meta is bad and continues the "bad play" rumour on Tom. I feel inclined to take this as him trying to build momentum against Tom, even if that momentum doesn't get used until later.
You seem to be convieniently forgetting how this particualr meta got started, with Stardust voting Tom because he was acting the same whay he was in other games. What Tom is doing is pointing out that in those games, he was town, therefore Stardust's vote only makes sense if his reasoning is "Tom is acting the same as he does as town on purpose because he is scum", which is certainly not the argument.
In summary, Tom was defending against meta by pointing out the flaw with it.
This is so obvious to me, I have a hard time beliveing your not intentionally twisting it. Vote: Wrath of Dog
Wut... I was just pointing out why self-meta is bad. I was not attacking Tom. I was just calling out something he said which irritated me. As I said in my post, I don't know how it started.
Also: Bad news... I'm losing access to internet... request replacement... looking forward to playing in this game.
His response to Misting pointing at me and voting for WoD. I dunno. Maybe he's telling the truth? I don't like that he claims to have not been attacking Tom though. I mean, it wasn't a vote, he didn't jump on her, but he did make a big post detailing why she was terrible for self-meta'ing. It's that sort of thing that can lead to a real wagon later, and I think WoD knows this.
I don't even know who he is. I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your post, as I said, I took it at face value without understanding the context and went on a bit of a rant about meta.
Reading this over, I just realised how terrible that bolded part is. So you don't know me. What's your point? I just don't understand how a mafia veteran could think this is a good argument. I can't really call this scummy though since it's terrible no matter who you are. Maybe it's an indication that he's a little too nervous about the attention, and therefore might be scummy? Not sure how to read that.
He apologizes to Tom as well... but that doesn't really mean anything at this point. The damage is done and could well be brought up again. Well, maybe not now that we've all been talking about this so much, but you know.
Last thing, perhaps the worst...
Last Activity: Today 01:06 AM
He's still around, but not answering questions. He hasn't made any posts anywhere, so maybe he's just stopping by quickly, but I don't like that he wouldn't try to help the town out with some insight before he replaces out. Then again, could be that he just doesn't really care about the game at this point.
So! To sum all that up, WoD makes some plays for easy town cred, puts out some dirt on Tom without factoring in the whole situation (and continues to do so even after being reminded), and doesn't contribute before ducking out. Nothing here is screaming scum to me, but he's been playing an easy game so far and hasn't actually worked towards finding scum since the very end of RVS. I'd say "leaning scum" at this point, but I'm not going to vote for him until he's replaced (despite wanting to kill Iso).
I really do hope WoD comes back for one last post, though. Getting those questions answered would be very helpful. Either way, hopefully his replacement can make things a little clearer one way or the other.
This big long post ends in...nothing. Not one bit of that screams scum to you? Even after you said "We may have caught WoD in the trap"? You did not think there was something overtly scummy?
I don't think that's telling of his alignment. WoD is a chronic replacer, and he constantly doesn't pay attention to context.
As long as we're mettaing like crazy, and since he's replacing, I'll trust your experience here Seppel and Unvote. At this point it should be fairly obvious that for me, a Vote: Stardust is in order.
H) Okay, here I said that it made sense if the (most likely 6) bad guys were evenly split among the genders, half and half. A 50/50 split made perfect sense to me, and I would feel that it would be a logical assumption based on simply the fact that the game has a pre-laid out group of players that have been made aware of each other’s gender and instructed that it matters somehow. If the players are evenly split, then why wouldn’t you think that the good/bad roles are evenly split as well? They certainly don’t have to be and very well might not be, but doesn’t logic dictate that to be the most likely scenario? What is LampDwellr’s true point here?
@Gaming the set-up: I know this is baseless speculation, but thought it was interesting. I was also leaning towards a high likelihood that the split between genders in scum would be either equal or just differ by 1 (ie 3 male scum and 2 female scum). Furthermore, this could also mean that the setup may be a combination of 2 games where each gender has their own set of power roles seeing as each gender can only target their own gender (at least I think that's what Arcadic means). Cuz how much sense would it be to have all the scum (or most of the scum) on one side with the doc, cop, vig, etc on the other? I know it's possible, but what's the likelihood? Would that make sense?
Also, Eron, I'd like you to do something very similar. In the following post, you pretty much said that you had a response to my question. I'd like your response now.
Does it make sense to you for person A to vote for person B based on the fact that person B's attitude is the same as it was in other games... in which person B was town?
You also claimed that the coming interaction between me and *** was most likely going to be important. I believe the interaction you were referring to has transpired, so what are your thoughts on it?
My answer is pretty close to WoD's actually. For someone to say they are playing the same way that they did as town is completely null. If I kick a kitten every time I'm scum and then don't kick a kitten and point it out, then that meta is completely irrelevant. If someone else said, "no, he's not kicking kittens, therefore he's town", that has a lot more weight. I don't really read into meta though because I'm not a fan of looking up other games in order to determine "tells" that can be completely fabricated.
#4, Eron: Seems to want to shoot Tom down in the same way that WoD did, but holds his tongue to let WoD do it instead. I get the impression that he wouldn't have mentioned me either, and that I don't like. I'll be looking forward to his next response to Tom.
Nope, I wouldn't have. I wasn't reading into your post very much since I was going back and forth with Tom. What do you take away from that?
EtR #105 and #111: I very much like the reasoning behind your vote. #136: such a Town post. I think your reaction to Tom was good, and this is perfect clarification of your original point. #185: I agree with a lot of what you say in this post, though I am opposed to the idea that Bear could have been obvtown at that point.
So far, I like your play in this game, and I'm reading you as Town. But then... #186: bad, BAD post. It isn't helpful at all, and given that it isn't the first post of its kind in this game, I can't understand why you would even consider posting it. #188: I don't like this reasoning, either. Point 3, especially, seems incredibly ironic and counter-productive.
All in all, you're (just barely) leaning Town for me. I might have been more certain, but #186 and #188 damaged your credibility in my eyes.
Jesus, take the wheel.
Bolly, I'll address this to you, but anyone can answer. What do I have to gain, as scum, by making that post? Can someone tell me?
Those were all the bits specifically addressed to me. I fly home tomorrow, so I will do a full post over the weekend, but I wanted to get this up here. I just didn't have time to read through the Kankalphabet post or the Gricky post.
I think that I'm starting to see this now...but I'm not convinced. I think you overdid your reaction a bit.
This is completely true. I was a bit incensed by Kahedron's attack and ended taking it out on IB and for that I should have apologized earlier. Even if my tone of voice was incorrect, I stand by my analysis of his behaviour and my vote, though.
Firstly, I'm assuming that by "specialized roles" you're talking about power roles. I think that Kahedron has already answered your question on it, but if he hasn't, it would be very easy to find out for yourself. There's a raft of completed games in this forum, and just by reading even the first few pages, you would see that the existence of power roles isn't explicitly mentioned.
Yes, all my questions have been satisfactorily answered and I don't think I'll need to be asking any more noobie questions from now on.
I'm calling it right now- worst rare in the set. Even good limited players will find better bombs at common and uncommon no sweat. Worst. Episode. Ever.
I really do predict this to be our worst rare in set award winner. I'd be happier opening a jar of eyeballs, so I think anything worse is highly unlikely. This card wont just have zero constructed potential, but not be significantly better than a mass of ghouls in a draft.
**Note that the noob card has in fact been played several other times this game...
Also, Tom, in what posts have I played the noob card before? I couldn't remember doing that, so I just searched my own posts and came up with nothing even hinting at that. Given the circumstances, I can't help but feel that you're trying to smear me with that line.
I said the noob card has been played other times this game. Not that you had played the noob card several times this game.
I said that paragraph so you (or anyone else) wouldn't jump on me and say "well Maokun and them are playing the noob card too, so why is Stardust special?"
Also, your last paragraph in the above post is just awful. You pull out the noob card...
That last bit was specifically replying to PG's sentence "I thought Stardust's vote on you was awkward, but being inexperienced, I assumed he knew what he was doing."
Cool, but that doesn't explain why you think we (or even just PG if that's the case) shouldn't assume that you know what you are doing.
Quote from Stardust »
By the way, please don't assume I know what I'm doing! This is only my second game after all.
Especially when you say you know exactly what you are doing.
I've been incredibly busy with job interviews and games of magic and driving, a lot. It might not be tomorrow, but I'll catch up soon. I do know one thing: Unvote.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Who was that masked man anyway?
MTGSalvation: Now with more Drama than Season 5 of Supernatural!
Kankennon Describing you as erratic doesn't really do the word justice...I'm going to withhold my opinion of you, pending these questions: 1. You have at least double the posts of most of the other players. Would you consider yourself a Town leader? 2. Do you feel that you have been scumhunting in this game? Please point me to examples if you think you have. 3. Earlier, you directed an attack at LampDwellr based on a partial quote. Has your opinion of Lamp changed since then? Do you think he is Town or Scum? 4. Are you afraid of Seppel? Pre-emptive-EWP... 5: why should I not vote for you right now? 6: why should others not vote for you right now?
1) Most of those posts were me having fun back during the RVS stage, which evidently ended before I was completely aware of it, according to IB, around post #75. Just ask GrickyTimmick—most of my posts prior to that point and even shortly after were all non-content “fluff” posts. Now that every post takes an eternity in Kank time, I’ll definitely be making a lot less of them. I’d like to think that I can be helpful to the town, but I don’t think I’m the right candidate for that job just yet. I usually make a lot of misses before I ever start hitting bulls-eyes.
A) Okay, so who would you say is the Town leader, or who could at least qualify for that job?
2) I feel like I’ve been more towndefending than scumhunting. Most of my energy lately has been spent with GrickyTimmick on a whole bunch of “Oh yeah? But what about…?”
B) Defending yourself as Town, or defending others as well?
3) I’ve left LampDwellr on my back-burner ever since. Once I have a chance to go back over everything with a magnifying glass, he’ll be at the top of my list of interests. Shakespeare and Klingons would say that retaliatory votes are best served cold. (In all actuality, I haven’t gotten a full read on him yet, so I’ll refrain from fully answering that last part of your question there just yet.)
I know you've made a post on this, so I'll analyse that separately.
6) Because I might actually be useful to the town in the long run. Did you ever watch the movie Clue (1985)? I sometimes have those “Aha!” moments like Tim Curry did at the end of that movie. My early death does not help the town any.
C) ...shouldn't these be effectively the same answer? Am I different from everyone else in some way?
A) The only vet player that is currently leaning town for me is Gricky. If you (Bolly) were a scum player, I could see this question as a fishing attempt to find out who I would look up to among the other players for guidance, and if I answered a scum buddy of yours, then you’d find a way to use that as an advantage, and if I answered a vet town player instead, you may decide that person would be a good early target for a nightkill. I fully see my answer to this question as being more beneficial to the scum team than the town.
B) Mostly in defense of myself. I did mention in a few other posts that I did not see the guilt and/or scumminess in other (mostly) new players that others did.
C) Every player is different. You split up 5 & 6 which could have been an extension of the same question, and so I answered them separately. I don’t want you to vote for me no matter what side you are on. I don’t want the town to vote for me because it would take a number of their votes as well to lynch me.
In other news, Tom, as per usual, is floundering. I don't see the solid scum hunting skills that Wessel was talking about, and frankly, Tom looks like the same sketchy player that got lynched in the two games of experience I have with her. Vote: Tom.
...when Tom was town in those two games?
Right. I was lying. That was kinda the point. I wanted to make my argument awful.
I cannot see Stardust and Tom being on the same side. This does not look like two townies battling each other over semantics to me. Can anyone outside of these two help develop a thoughtful play-by-play between them? I’m feeling somewhat lost in the shuffle.
I've been incredibly busy with job interviews and games of magic and driving, a lot. It might not be tomorrow, but I'll catch up soon. I do know one thing: Unvote.
Now that you’ve lowered your gun off me for the moment, I would like to hear what your take is on the other players and skirmishes that have been going on recently.
@Gaming the set-up: I know this is baseless speculation, but thought it was interesting. I was also leaning towards a high likelihood that the split between genders in scum would be either equal or just differ by 1 (ie 3 male scum and 2 female scum). Furthermore, this could also mean that the setup may be a combination of 2 games where each gender has their own set of power roles seeing as each gender can only target their own gender (at least I think that's what Arcadic means). Cuz how much sense would it be to have all the scum (or most of the scum) on one side with the doc, cop, vig, etc on the other? I know it's possible, but what's the likelihood? Would that make sense?
Just some thought candy... /rambling
Until there is a claim otherwise, I'm going to believe that this is the case. Very clever.
I cannot see Stardust and Tom being on the same side. This does not look like two townies battling each other over semantics to me. Can anyone outside of these two help develop a thoughtful play-by-play between them? I’m feeling somewhat lost in the shuffle.
I agree. Tom's confusion is too genuine. If one ever flips scum, the other is cleared.
ftr, gricky I'm not new I have been playing for over 2 years.
I will try to read more in depth tomorrow.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
http://forum.iwtso.com/index.php http://iwtso.com/
Join our forum and site to Watch Simpsons free, and discuss a whole lot of other things on our forum.
We are about to have a competition on our forum, join for a chance to win $75
Quick post here to avoid the dreaded Mod prod as is likely to get it in my place. i need to re-read the thread when I am more coherent, Insomnia Sucks.
Kank: Earlier you asked us what I felt about Lampdweller now, of the people who currently have wagons against them he is the most consistent and coherent to liking him less as scum especially as I dislike the other vote on him. And to echo Seppel the only time I have seen a gambit like the one Dusty pulled Scum did it. So of the two of them would be more willing to go after Dusty but need to do a full re-read before I change my vote.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
Quick post here to avoid the dreaded Mod prod as is likely to get it in my place. i need to re-read the thread when I am more coherent, Insomnia Sucks.
Kank: Earlier you asked us what I felt about Lampdweller now, of the people who currently have wagons against them he is the most consistent and coherent to liking him less as scum especially as I dislike the other vote on him. And to echo Seppel the only time I have seen a gambit like the one Dusty pulled Scum did it. So of the two of them would be more willing to go after Dusty but need to do a full re-read before I change my vote.
Can you cite where the gambit was pulled and by whom?
Quick post here to avoid the dreaded Mod prod as is likely to get it in my place. i need to re-read the thread when I am more coherent, Insomnia Sucks.
Kank: Earlier you asked us what I felt about Lampdweller now, of the people who currently have wagons against them he is the most consistent and coherent to liking him less as scum especially as I dislike the other vote on him. And to echo Seppel the only time I have seen a gambit like the one Dusty pulled Scum did it. So of the two of them would be more willing to go after Dusty but need to do a full re-read before I change my vote.
Can you cite where the gambit was pulled and by whom?
Day 1 Triskellion just before you joined the game, pulled by Iso claiming that Foxlet was playing differently than normal. I ended up initially voting for Iso then switching my vote off him to Vitek who dropped into a similar position to the one WoD now finds himself. Hindsight being 20/20 wish I has stuck with Iso.
Still haven't done a re read so don't wish to commit a vote to either side atm.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
Quick post here to avoid the dreaded Mod prod as is likely to get it in my place. i need to re-read the thread when I am more coherent, Insomnia Sucks.
Kank: Earlier you asked us what I felt about Lampdweller now, of the people who currently have wagons against them he is the most consistent and coherent to liking him less as scum especially as I dislike the other vote on him. And to echo Seppel the only time I have seen a gambit like the one Dusty pulled Scum did it. So of the two of them would be more willing to go after Dusty but need to do a full re-read before I change my vote.
Can you cite where the gambit was pulled and by whom?
Day 1 Triskellion just before you joined the game, pulled by Iso claiming that Foxlet was playing differently than normal. I ended up initially voting for Iso then switching my vote off him to Vitek who dropped into a similar position to the one WoD now finds himself. Hindsight being 20/20 wish I has stuck with Iso.
Still haven't done a re read so don't wish to commit a vote to either side atm.
Ugh. An Iso gambit.
FWIW, anything Iso does should not be something you form an opinion as a result of.
I still don't like Maokun, something is up with LampDwellr, but I'll go ahead and unvote; vote stardust for being my best lead.
Normal Mafia games ran this year, and in every single one on Day 1, a townie was lynched. The odds are that whoever everyone jumps on today will most likely be a townie as well.
A) Interesting! I know why it'd be 75/25 or so in favor of a townie getting lynched, but why do you think it's 100%? That's a lot.
Quote from Kankennon »
I'm perfectly content with leaving my vote on the (currently) not-playing Iso.
B) I don't think "because townies usually get lynched I'm not gonna vote for anyone" is very reasonable. Townies getting lynched day one lets you check the wagon for the weakest justifications, and helps you scumhunt. It's virtually always protown to lynch SOMEBODY. I think I remember you saying you're kinda new at Mafia, is that true?
Very well, I'll stop with the jokey votes then if it's time to really start playing. Unvote Yes, this is my first official Mafia game so feel free to label me with whatever sort of noob Post-It notes you desire. Be sure not to consider me using humor or sarcasm as a tell in either direction, because that's how I always am 24/7. (Feel free to check back in any of my 10,000+ posts.) It's way too early for me to get a read on anyone yet, and no, I'm not going to jump off a bridge just because everyone else is doing it. One of my all-time pet peeves is people who commit to playing a game and then never show up to play it. With that said, I'll place my official vote on whoever shows up LAST, between Seppel and captaineddie.
C) I got no anti-noob bias; you don't look confused here. I think you'll probably be good at this game, actually. I do have anti-"please don't think I'm scummy if I do X" bias, though. And - for example - I haven't voted yet, but I'm not making a show of not voting yet. A lot of new players don't want to die early in their first game, so it could be that. On the other hand, it could be... Vote: Kankennon
Oh I totally get that me posting so much already is putting a target sign on my back, from either townies willing to jump on the Kankwagon because I seem to be so scummy, or from nervous scummers worried that I might be too active and able to root them out.
General statement is general. I get that you voted for me because I outwardly warned of my use of humor and sarcasm, which obviously means that if you use it or even warn people that you plan to use humor/sarcasm no matter what, then that also brands you as scummy, no matter what.
F) Nah, it seemed overly self-aware.
Quote from Kankennon »
Seriously, I only had like 15 minutes to check things out at the time, and I figured that checking Normal games was the best use of my time since this game has been labled a "Normal" game. If this Normal game is not actually a Normal game, then so be it. In any case, if Mafia players account for 25% of the players, then wouldn't you think they'd get hit at least 25% of the time out of the gate? All I found that it was an odd statistic that sampled a small portion of the total games played, yes. Does it have any bearing in this game? Probably not. Feel free to throw facts and statistics around however you like. I'm done looking up past game statistics and will focus my numbers on the game at hand.
G) I think looking up past game statistics is pretty interesting and informative! So did you. You depart quickly, though. Why?? I think you would expect to hit scum about 15% of the time on D1, because scum represent only 25-30% of the players and scum can also vote, which increases the likelihood of a successful townie wagon. It's hard to hit scum unless they bus. What I found interesting was the 100% part! It means that some of the things people in normals on THIS VERY FORUM are seeing as scummy probably aren't! It's still protown to vote people.
H) Your assumption that there are 6 scum and 3 are male and 3 are female seems problematic for a number of reasons. Your reasoning from it also strikes me as spurious, because the order in which you kill people matters even if you do decide that it's 90% likely the scum are half-male and half-female - which is not the case. Since we're gaming the setup a bit here, why do you think it is likely that there are an equal number of M/F scum, exactly? Hitting half the baddies in 11 lynches is pretty horrible anyway, with nightkills included! BUT ANYWAY, you're doing this thing through your posts where you're like "sorry I was really joking, sorry you couldn't tell, don't persecute me for making jokes!" If everything you say is half-serious this is a very convenient position for you, wouldn't you say?
I) Very nice catch there Kank. Lamp how do you know the lay out of the scum team?? I can think of a very good reason which leads us to vote: LampDwellr
Is there something you know about the scum splits here that the general public does not know? Just how do you know that the split isn't half and half?
Oh good heavens. Must be election season if we're quoting half-sentences now and someone else is barning it. I'll quote a little more of the sentence:
Quote from LampDwellr »
even if you do decide that it's 90% likely the scum are half-male and half-female - which is not the case.
J) It is not the case that [it is 90% likely that the scum are half-and-half], is what I was saying. An awkward sentence, but not as awkward as saying "even if you do decide that it's 90% likely the scum are half-male and half female - which is not actually the confidence interval I would assign such a circumstance." ~~~~~~ Back to the actual conversation.
Quote from Kankennon »
In all reality, the fact that I'm a jokester by nature will surely lead to my early death until people get used to me and say, "Oh that's just Kank. He does that no matter what side he's on."
K) You keep making this error where you think that people think that being silly is worth killing someone for. I don't agree. Saying stuff that's quasi-relevant and then when challenged saying "I was being silly" is the thing I was talking about. And now here's that "I will surely die" fatalism stuff. Which is another one of those quasi-scummy things.
L) I am not certain that it is not a 50/50 split. But that's not something I'd like to gamble heavy on, because I think it's more like...40% likely that it's 50/50. It could easily be an odd number of scum, especially if you have loner scums or neutrals, and if it is an even number of scum it may well not be 50/50.
Yes... you are bad at quoting... Perhaps you should proofread your posts more carefully since there was also confusion on what you meant with the slip that you knew more about the set up than you did.
I am not ever going to apologize for someone quoting a quarter of a sentence out of context and then trying to make something out of it. The person you're looking for on this "causing confusion" charge is not me. Make serious posts, not random needling.
PG is right. I was merely commenting about the people who were getting the barns on them other than myself at the time, and I couldn't see any good justification for barns on either of them. A lot has happened since then. I'd REALLY like the non-players to start playing. I'm more annoyed by players not playing than I am by LampDwellr and GrickyTimmick deciding that I'm a baddie.
Har. Draw this out to its logical conclusion: the people playing the most town are the people who do nothing to advance the plot. Ergo, nobody should advance the plot.
I think it's pretty dumb! I don't know anything about the setup. All I was saying at any point is that we CAN'T assume things about the setup, and we've got 3 people who've voted me for allegedly knowing so much about the setup. Dork Knight's vote is dumber because he somewhat apparently didn't read any of my responses at all, but Ka's came sooner and looks more like an eager "HAHA CAUGHT YOU" fallacy than Dork's.
They're both wrong, though. I don't know anything about the setup, didn't say I did, and I did say we shouldn't assume things about the setup. Good heavens.
~~~~~
Quote from "Kankennon" »
I'm noticing a pattern of LampDwellr and GrickyTimmick sharing many of the same opinions yet seemingly avoiding referencing or talking to/about each other.
Quote from "Kankennon" »
I'd really like to see them grill each other for a change and show the rest of us novices just how it's supposed to be done. I must say that I'm somewhat suspicious of a possible interconnection between them.
O)
I don't know why Gricky's not talking about me, but the reason I am not talking about Gricky is I haven't posted in a couple days. I'll get to that in my next post.
Also: I'd really like to see you not make spurious claims, but we can't always get what we want. You think there is a linkage because we both voted you at roughly the same time for a decent reason; in fact we did so because of the decent reason.
~~~~~
Quote from "Dork Knight" »
I don't like the fact that LampDwellr seems to know something about the setup that only scum could know. His backpedalling that what he wrote isn't what he meant doesn't ring true to me. It sounds like scum who said too much and got caught.
Quote from "Dork Knight" »
vote LampDwellr
Quote from "Dork Knight" »
Well, you see son, sometimes, a man has to think things over before he makes a big decision. If ya just fire up the lawnmower and have at it before you think it through, you'll never have an award winning turf.
P)
You need to think harder. I am not backpedaling. I clarified, but that is not backpedaling. I did not say that what I wrote isn't what I meant, I said the quarter-sentence that Kank posted isn't what I meant. What Kank did was the equivalent of me doing this:
Quote from "Dork Knight" »
what he wrote isn't what he meant
Q) All I was ever saying - read the whole original post - was that strategy speculations based on 3 fem and 3 male scum are not accurate. That is the theme of the entire post. I don't think it's 90% likely that half the scum are male and half are female, and that is because of reasons I already posted. I didn't say, ever, "scum definitely aren't half male and half female." This is a pretty bad vote rationale, man. Almost like, distractingly facile.
~~~~~~~~~
Quote from "GrickyTimmick" »
F. I think this is the beginning of the ties you are trying to make between me and Lampdwellr. I did think I was first, but it turns out that you are right, he was. However, my vote reasoning and analysis are completely different. I'm already knee-deep in quotes so I really don't wanna go searching for it right now, but Lamp's reasons and my reasons have nothing to do with each other from what I remember.
R)
I'm voting him because he made statements overqualifying himself and trying to pre-protect against "seeming scummy," and then said some fatalistic stuff that looked a bit noob-scummish. I think the "WAIT DID YOU SAY YOU KNOW THE SETUP" bad quote he did of me reads about 50/50 'he must be scum if he is voting me' and 50/50 'get offa me, town, I'll attack you back,' so that's a bit of a wash in my eyes.
~~~~~~~~~
Quote from "Kankennon" »
LampDwellr: How do you see GrickyTimmick’s behavior and reasoning?
S)
Gricky looks aggressive to me, which is not a way scum typically plays with a village full of new players, who often think aggression looks scummy.
These posts are so large that Kank and Gricky are town.
My read is usually that scum care more. What's your reasoning?
I take it that this is your first game with Seppel .This is vaguely normal for him. At some point he may come back and give us some reasoning for this.
U) No it's fine that he said that, I just want to hear more about it. I'm not mad the post was short or whatever.
A) In whose math book does “most likely” equal 100%? Never once did I guess or state that it was a sure thing (100% chance) that a townie would get lynched, only that whoever got lynched day 1 would “most likely” be town. B) I’d much rather do as careful of an analysis as possible Day 1 than just go crazy and quickly lynch somebody on pure speculation and hope to see what can be garnered from their death. Obviously somebody has to die day 1 or else the day ends in a no lynch and the scum get a free kill. I get that. I just think it’s smarter to do as much research as possible first than try to speed through it. I would imagine that a quick barn of someone would turn up much less useful information, because the scum players would be happy to see a townie die quickly, yet would likely go out of their way to stall a lynch if the sights are on a known scum buddy (unless their stalling would be super obvious). C) I was hoping I could be sillier than I am and have been recently, but I get that it would only be detrimental to the game and confuse people, possibly leading them down the wrong path(s). Lesson learned. D) I’m not going to have time to research past games anymore. Just this reread here is going to take me at least an hour. E) LampDwellr was surprisingly vague on exactly why he voted for me actually. F) Overly self aware? LampDwellr voted for me because I talk about myself all the time and/or warn others of my possible naughty behavior? Well, I can’t deny that. I do that every waking hour of the day. If you’re interested, there’s a whole back story why gets you while you’re at it. G) Why did LampDwellt chide me at first for dredging up minor information from past games and then ask me why I stopped doing it. Whaaaa? H) Okay, here I said that it made sense if the (most likely 6) bad guys were evenly split among the genders, half and half. A 50/50 split made perfect sense to me, and I would feel that it would be a logical assumption based on simply the fact that the game has a pre-laid out group of players that have been made aware of each other’s gender and instructed that it matters somehow. If the players are evenly split, then why wouldn’t you think that the good/bad roles are evenly split as well? They certainly don’t have to be and very well might not be, but doesn’t logic dictate that to be the most likely scenario? What is LampDwellr’s true point here? I) Here Kahedron jumps in and votes LampDwellr. Kahedron: Could you give me a full read of LampDwellr now that there has been more said about the situation? J) LampDwellr’s restatement of what he meant by “which is not the case” is far more convoluted than it should possibly be. Notice how he made the sentence WAY more awkward instead of clarifying what he supposedly meant instead. K) Meesa gonna die? L) LampDwellr goes from completely certain that it is not 50/50, to agreeing that there might be a 40% chance of the 50/50 split. M) So, how can a person not decide if someone is bad, yet still vote for them and leave their vote on them for…how long now? N) I was not the only one that thought LampDwellr’s vague statements about setup splits were eyebrow-raising. What did I not do? I didn’t place my vote on LampDwellr. I placed a half-hearted OMGUS vote on GrickyTimmick instead and y’all saw where that went. O) Lamp & Gricky: Please state for the record why your votes are on me again if you will. I can’t be the only interested and/or forgot exactly why. P) It wasn't exactly clear what he said, was it? Q) I see a pattern of LampDwellr using completely made up statistics: 100%, 40%, 90% R) I’d like to see LampDwellr look at me through a new lens, just like I’m doing here with him. S) One of LampDwellr’s more reasonable statements I would say. T) While I’m of the belief that scum are far more likely to lurk more and only post when they feel like they can capitalize on something. U) I too would like to hear more from Seppel and everyone else for that matter.
This took me an extremely long time to go through. Kank’s final verdict on LampDwellr as of this post:
I’m gonna get some sleep…
A) Not what I was saying. I was saying it was interesting that it had happened in every game you looked at. That wasn't a challenge to you.
E) I wasn't that vague.
F) I voted you - and I said this already, cut it out - because it seemed like you were preclaiming that "yeah I'll probably look scummy guys" in an effort to deflect potential criticism later. It's a noobscum move at times.
G) Nope! I did not chide you for dragging up information from past games at all.
H) We were talking about possible options for the setup and I thought your reasoning was spurious. So I explained why rather than going "nope dumb"
J) I did clarify what I meant, in multiple iterations. I was restating the part in quotation marks to explain why I opted for the simplified wording in the first place. I can't believe you're actually still pushing this nonsense, frankly.
L) I REALLY CANNOT BELIEVE that you are pushing THIS more. I did not say that I was completely certain it was not the case. I said it was not the case that we can be confident scum are 50/50 M/F. That is all I ever said. Quit it.
M) I speculated, I did not decide. There are many reasons to vote someone, and certainty is rarely the #1 reason.
O) My vote is still on you at this point because you're pushing so aggressively that I said I was 100% sure the scum weren't 50/50 M/F, and you know that's not what I said, so you must be lying. Town don't have a habit of lying, and if that is your habit as town you should quit it. If you were lying about what someone else said I might also be voting you for that.
My initial vote was because of all that "I'm sure I'm gonna get nailed for this but" stuff you were spewing, which is a frequent noobscum gesture.
Q) I am acknowledging that these statistics are made up, because they're all in HYPOTHETICAL CONVERSATIONS.
I still don't like Maokun, something is up with LampDwellr, but I'll go ahead and unvote; vote stardust for being my best lead.
This whole sentence gives me scummy feelings towards infectiousbaloth. Especially 'something is up with LampDwellr', very meagre attempt at trying to convey your suspicions of LampDwellr.
Also, Seppel and infectiousbaloth are probably not scum together due to their interaction. Plus, I'm liking Seppel for town.
Allow me to elaborate on LampDwellr.
I think he is town. I truly do. But my belief that he is town is not because of his actions, but in spite of them. Something about mindset. I'm not familiar at all with his meta, and something about it rubs me the wrong way, but I don't see him posting what he does as scum.
Quick post here to avoid the dreaded Mod prod as is likely to get it in my place. i need to re-read the thread when I am more coherent, Insomnia Sucks.
Kank: Earlier you asked us what I felt about Lampdweller now, of the people who currently have wagons against them he is the most consistent and coherent to liking him less as scum especially as I dislike the other vote on him. And to echo Seppel the only time I have seen a gambit like the one Dusty pulled Scum did it. So of the two of them would be more willing to go after Dusty but need to do a full re-read before I change my vote.
Can you cite where the gambit was pulled and by whom?
Day 1 Triskellion just before you joined the game, pulled by Iso claiming that Foxlet was playing differently than normal. I ended up initially voting for Iso then switching my vote off him to Vitek who dropped into a similar position to the one WoD now finds himself. Hindsight being 20/20 wish I has stuck with Iso.
Still haven't done a re read so don't wish to commit a vote to either side atm.
Ugh. An Iso gambit.
FWIW, anything Iso does should not be something you form an opinion as a result of.
I still don't like Maokun, something is up with LampDwellr, but I'll go ahead and unvote; vote stardust for being my best lead.
I don't get it, though. You think it was scummy of me to respond to Kank's meta with "hey, that's not very accurate"? And what "actions" are you even talking about?
I still don't like Maokun, something is up with LampDwellr, but I'll go ahead and unvote; vote stardust for being my best lead.
This whole sentence gives me scummy feelings towards infectiousbaloth. Especially 'something is up with LampDwellr', very meagre attempt at trying to convey your suspicions of LampDwellr.
Also, Seppel and infectiousbaloth are probably not scum together due to their interaction. Plus, I'm liking Seppel for town.
Allow me to elaborate on LampDwellr.
I think he is town. I truly do. But my belief that he is town is not because of his actions, but in spite of them. Something about mindset. I'm not familiar at all with his meta, and something about it rubs me the wrong way, but I don't see him posting what he does as scum.
If you truly think he is town then why does he rub you the wrong way and why do you say "something is up" with him?
Also, doesn't "I don't see him posting what he does as scum" imply that you know his meta?
I don't get it, though. You think it was scummy of me to respond to Kank's meta with "hey, that's not very accurate"? And what "actions" are you even talking about?
No, I'm referring to a post you made much earlier in the game, I'll dig it up. It gave me a bad feel. But your mindset seems townie to me, so it may just be my error.
*snip*
Also, doesn't "I don't see him posting what he does as scum" imply that you know his meta?
No. I'm an alumni from the Yanni school of kpaca d-ridery. There's a compelling philosophy of a scummy "mindset" versus a townie "mindset". (as opposed to a scum-tell driven philosophy) I don't see LampDwellr's posts coming from a scum mindset in spite of things that could be looked at as scum tells.
See, I didn't know that. I was talking mostly from my experiences with IRL Werewolf where retaliation occurs mostly from townies that believe a werewolf is trying to get rid of them since only werewolves know exactly how they are voting.
Heh, I don't even know what "RVS" is... so many acronyms.
Personally I've never really seen why OMGUS voting is actually scummy anyway. Like, it seems like one of those things people say is scummy because it's stupid, so it's a way to discourage it. Only people who are gonna seriously OMGUS vote as scum are ridiculously noobish - not even new, just incapable of seeing the impact of such a thing. And at that point they're as likely to do it as town because it's emotional.
~~~~~~~~~
Quote from Macius »
Its odd in that while I am thinking the same way, I still always wonder if mao is maybe using newness as an advantage here.
I know that I used the newbie card before, even though I knew what was going on....
Odd probably wasnt the right word now that I think about it...[/ QUOTE]
Using newness as an advantage to achieve what, at this moment?
~~~~~~~
[QUOTE=Kankennon]I checked back with all of the Normal Mafia games ran this year, and in every single one on Day 1, a townie was lynched.
The odds are that whoever everyone jumps on today will most likely be a townie as well.
Interesting! I know why it'd be 75/25 or so in favor of a townie getting lynched, but why do you think it's 100%? That's a lot.
Quote from Kankennon »
I'm perfectly content with leaving my vote on the (currently) not-playing Iso.
I don't think "because townies usually get lynched I'm not gonna vote for anyone" is very reasonable. Townies getting lynched day one lets you check the wagon for the weakest justifications, and helps you scumhunt. It's virtually always protown to lynch SOMEBODY. I think I remember you saying you're kinda new at Mafia, is that true?
~~~~~~~
Quote from Wessel »
But I think there are now enough indications that the RVS is over, so I would like to ask everyone to just stop talking about different things and start playing the game. Or at least, I would like everyone to give their views on what's happening in the game (like, do you think anyone's post is indicative of their alignment, etcetera). Let's get this game going.
There's probably an acronym for this that I don't know, but a surprisingly effective, kind of scummy tactic in games with new people is to gain town cred by saying neutral things that clarify game rules/game states/strategy/etc. I do it all the time. It's protown in the most surface way possible, but it is often a scum thing to do. The whole "I'd encourage people to start saying real things and actually playing" with no content meeting that description makes this look like cheap town point scoring. Thoughts?
This post rubbed me the wrong way. Just the way that your actions in past games were presented gave me an uneasy "Why does this guy want me to know how he plays as each alignment?" feel.
Ah, I seem to be stuck in a neverending cycle of “he said/she said” with LampDwellr. In order to make this less messy, I have to use Word, which then screws up the quotes…
LampDwellr: H) Your assumption that there are 6 scum and 3 are male and 3 are female seems problematic for a number of reasons. Your reasoning from it also strikes me as spurious, because the order in which you kill people matters even if you do decide that it's 90% likely the scum are half-male and half-female - which is not the case. J) It is not the case that [it is 90% likely that the scum are half-and-half], is what I was saying. An awkward sentence, but not as awkward as saying "even if you do decide that it's 90% likely the scum are half-male and half female - which is not actually the confidence interval I would assign such a circumstance." L) I am not certain that it is not a 50/50 split. But that's not something I'd like to gamble heavy on, because I think it's more like...40% likely that it's 50/50. It could easily be an odd number of scum, especially if you have loner scums or neutrals, and if it is an even number of scum it may well not be 50/50.
Kankennon:
H) Okay, here I said that it made sense if the (most likely 6) bad guys were evenly split among the genders, half and half. A 50/50 split made perfect sense to me, and I would feel that it would be a logical assumption based on simply the fact that the game has a pre-laid out group of players that have been made aware of each other’s gender and instructed that it matters somehow. If the players are evenly split, then why wouldn’t you think that the good/bad roles are evenly split as well? They certainly don’t have to be and very well might not be, but doesn’t logic dictate that to be the most likely scenario? What is LampDwellr’s true point here?
J) LampDwellr’s restatement of what he meant by “which is not the case” is far more convoluted than it should possibly be. Notice how he made the sentence WAY more awkward instead of clarifying what he supposedly meant instead.
L) LampDwellr goes from completely certain that it is not 50/50, to agreeing that there might be a 40% chance of the 50/50 split.
LampDwellr: H) We were talking about possible options for the setup and I thought your reasoning was spurious. So I explained why rather than going "nope dumb"
J) I did clarify what I meant, in multiple iterations. I was restating the part in quotation marks to explain why I opted for the simplified wording in the first place. I can't believe you're actually still pushing this nonsense, frankly.
L) I REALLY CANNOT BELIEVE that you are pushing THIS more. I did not say that I was completely certain it was not the case. I said it was not the case that we can be confident scum are 50/50 M/F. That is all I ever said. Quit it.
O) My vote is still on you at this point because you're pushing so aggressively that I said I was 100% sure the scum weren't 50/50 M/F, and you know that's not what I said, so you must be lying. Town don't have a habit of lying, and if that is your habit as town you should quit it. If you were lying about what someone else said I might also be voting you for that.
My initial vote was because of all that "I'm sure I'm gonna get nailed for this but" stuff you were spewing, which is a frequent noobscum gesture.
Q) I am acknowledging that these statistics are made up, because they're all in HYPOTHETICAL CONVERSATIONS.
Curious. LampDwellr is the one yelling, ranting, and making up statistics and insisting that other people (mainly me) said them, yet I’m the one being aggressive here?
Oh by the way, I never stated that I was 100% certain about ANYTHING (or even 90% for that matter). Where did that originate? Oh yeah…
Kankennon: The odds are that whoever everyone jumps on today will most likely be a townie as well.
LampDwellr: Interesting! I know why it'd be 75/25 or so in favor of a townie getting lynched, but why do you think it's 100%? That's a lot.
“Most likely” means having a better chance of being/occurring than the other option(s) present, definitely not a sure thing. For instance, Barack Obama was considered to be the “most likely” candidate that was going to win on Nov 6th due to most of the various polls ran around the country. He BARELY beat Mitt Romney in the popular vote by just a few percentage points (but trounced him in the Electoral College). So I say this still: Whoever we lynch today will most likely be a townie. (Please note: Most likely does not mean 100%) LampDwellr is likely a townie. (Please note: I did not use the term “most” before likely here) If somehow we lynch LampDwellr today and he flips town, then I would probably laugh at the pure irony of the situation.
Alright, I'll agree to dance with you. Also, I'm a "daughter".
Accusation of smearing as means of self-defense by cutting a sentence in two, which ends being a smear on itself. And yes, I'm still accusing you of derailing the matter since you refuse to acknowledge or explain the apparently scummy behaviour I and others notice in you.
Just to show how a previous vague leaning was realized into full-fledged suspicion. Note that by including this in the paragraph, I allowed room for hesitation because as much as I suspect you I can't tell I'm 100% sure you are scum, nor I think anyone can say that of anyone in this game. I'm quite convinced myself but I'm open to change my mind with sufficient evidence. This post of yours is all the opposite of mind-changing evidence, by the way.
How's that exactly scummy? Other players have pointed that if any, that kind of paranoia is more likely to be noob-town tell, not to mention that -as I've explained and everyone else but you understood- I and other noobs were sure we were still at the RSV stage so it was a jokey approach to choose my first vote since I didn't know anyone here to poke with a vote. Why do we have to go all over this again?
Emphasis mine. I think you got me here man, because while it's true that I have continuously reminded people that I'm a noob (chiefly to try to defuse the knee-jerk anger focused on me when I'm asking the most harmless questions) I don't remember using that fact as an excuse... except when I was directly attacked for being a stupid noob and, this is super important, not for being (apparently) scum. Please do present all these quotes you mention of me excusing scummy behavior on my noobness to refresh my memory on those italicised accusations. Please do make sure of explaining how what I'm excusing myself for is actually scummy behaviour, too. Thanks.
Lastly, for the record, if your read carefully the post where I voted for you, I explained my valid reasons (which, as stated above, you keep refusing to even acknowledge) to do so. Accusing me of voting retaliatory (specially since I refrained from doing so against the one originally attacking me, Kahedron) is such a scumtell desperate attempt to discredit my vote and divert my accusations, that I almost facepalmed.
Part of the reason why you are currently getting attacked is your chronology is way off.
IB First attacks you in post 75 [url=http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=9277600&postcount=75]here[/url]
[url=http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=9277628&postcount=76]Post 76[/url] I ask the why he as voted you for.
[url=http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=9277775&postcount=78]Post 78[/url] Lamp asks why I am defending you.
A question repeated by I.Balolth in [url=http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=9277905&postcount=79]post 79[/url]
Assorted other posts from the 3 of us not completely relevant.
[url=http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=9287379&postcount=151]Post 151[/url] I vote for LampDwellr
[url=http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=9295454&postcount=231]Post 231[/url]: I lose patience with you and blast you for repeating questions that should not be asked as they can only hurt the town.
[url=http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=9295812&postcount=239]Post 239[/url] I.Baloth makes a very brief summary post. Including the line:
[quote]
Maokun is playing the noob card too hard and doesn't look town at all to me.[/url]
[url=http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=9296087&postcount=241]post 241[/url] You respond to me with the start of your warped timeline and stick vote on I.Baloth because he has followed me onto your bandwagon.
Every single post you have made since post 241 has been attempting to portray a scenario that is not backed up by the facts. Those being that I.Baloth has not followed me anywhere and in fact I initially questioned his actions.
Far from it at this point I have no plans on voting for you this or any other day as I currently believe that you are a vanilla town who is unfortunately overwhelmed by the size and complexity if the game and I would much rather we used our first days lynch actually hitting scum. Though I retain the right to lynch you as the least bad option if we get anywhere near a deadline with a no-lynch.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
@Seppel: What do you think of the game so far?
This forum requires that you wait 30 seconds between posts. Please try again in 17 seconds.
I... seriously don't understand this post? I'm reading post #241 over and over to try to find this "warped timeline" you are talking of but these are the only things I said in my post:
I always referred to your latest post and the only times when I mentioned past votes is when pointing that IB has been playing an overused "maokun is playing the noob card too hard" strategy, but that doesn't concern you directly. So where's this warped timeline that I'm apparently using?
You know, after your past post I was mostly convinced that you were just elitist veteran town, though there was a chance of you being scum. However, I'm starting to notice that the real point of these posts is to subtly claim exactly that. Your posts imply "oh you are so noob that I'd lynch you even though you are town like me" which serves two purposes: First, make sure of belittling me in front of the other towns so they also eventually consider to lynch me if unsure of better options... ensuring a mislynch, which is basically a wasted Day. Second, you are cast as a town authority, wisely taking a controversial but necessary town, apparently with its best interests in mind.
So now I wonder what it's more likely for an apparently experienced player: To "lose his patience" and aggressively attack another town member; or to cleverly act that role to claim town. I'm pointing a FoS at you. Not upgrading it to a vote because you may just be elitist, thin-patienced town, but that's how I'm reading you.
Unvote.
You don't know how it started? You mean you're too lazy to look up what happened in this 240-post game? I just reread the entire thread after being away from it for the week due to two exams, a lot of assignments, and a D&D session I ran, and I figured out how it started.
1) Stardust calls out Tom for being the same sketchy poster he was in previous games.
2) Tom says that makes no sense because, well, if he has a pattern of posting this way, why is that votable?
3) You say "SELF-META IS BAD AND YOU SHOULD FEEL BAD" or something similar
He's not self-metaing. He's not using self-meta. He's pointing out that Stardust's attack is bad. Tom sounds pretty sincere to me so far, and I've met him IRL so I think I have extra read power
Perhaps your replacement can do something to convince me they're town. Let's give them an extra incentive to work hard: Vote: WoD
Getting noob town vibes from Maokun and Kank. Maokun seems lazy (not reading the acronym/terminology thread the first time it was linked) and Kank seems overenthusiastic (the whole "how is scum split across genders" post) but they both post in what seems a sincere manner. I think anyone rereading their posts would be hard-pressed to disagree.
Why bring up meta in the very first place? You said yourself that it gave me an easy out. Why not just call me out on 'floundering' and bad play? If you were truly trying to focus on me and "rule me out as a target" like you say you were, there isn't any good reason that you would intentionally give me such an easy out.
Also, your last paragraph in the above post is just awful. You pull out the noob card, and the whole thing just reads as "I'm town because look at how calm I am and I'm not afraid to get pressure on me blah blah blah." But as it is difficult to prove that the second part is just acting, let's look at the noob card. "Please don't assume I know what I'm doing! This is only my second game after all." This is like the textbook definition of a safety net. You are essentially saying: "but if the crappy reasoning I just gave you doesn't hold water, don't blame me! I'm just a noob!" Town should just be able to give their reasoning. It is scum who need the safety nets.**
Also, I'd like to point out the irony: look at how you start your previous paragraph! You say that you know exactly what you are doing!
**Note that the noob card has in fact been played several other times this game, but as far as I can tell it has only been used as an excuse for not doing things or not knowing what to do. Not as a safety net for potentially bad reasoning.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Clan RepresentativeB) I’d much rather do as careful of an analysis as possible Day 1 than just go crazy and quickly lynch somebody on pure speculation and hope to see what can be garnered from their death. Obviously somebody has to die day 1 or else the day ends in a no lynch and the scum get a free kill. I get that. I just think it’s smarter to do as much research as possible first than try to speed through it. I would imagine that a quick barn of someone would turn up much less useful information, because the scum players would be happy to see a townie die quickly, yet would likely go out of their way to stall a lynch if the sights are on a known scum buddy (unless their stalling would be super obvious).
C) I was hoping I could be sillier than I am and have been recently, but I get that it would only be detrimental to the game and confuse people, possibly leading them down the wrong path(s). Lesson learned.
D) I’m not going to have time to research past games anymore. Just this reread here is going to take me at least an hour.
E) LampDwellr was surprisingly vague on exactly why he voted for me actually.
F) Overly self aware? LampDwellr voted for me because I talk about myself all the time and/or warn others of my possible naughty behavior? Well, I can’t deny that. I do that every waking hour of the day. If you’re interested, there’s a whole back story why
G) Why did LampDwellt chide me at first for dredging up minor information from past games and then ask me why I stopped doing it. Whaaaa?
H) Okay, here I said that it made sense if the (most likely 6) bad guys were evenly split among the genders, half and half. A 50/50 split made perfect sense to me, and I would feel that it would be a logical assumption based on simply the fact that the game has a pre-laid out group of players that have been made aware of each other’s gender and instructed that it matters somehow. If the players are evenly split, then why wouldn’t you think that the good/bad roles are evenly split as well? They certainly don’t have to be and very well might not be, but doesn’t logic dictate that to be the most likely scenario? What is LampDwellr’s true point here?
I) Here Kahedron jumps in and votes LampDwellr.
Kahedron: Could you give me a full read of LampDwellr now that there has been more said about the situation?
J) LampDwellr’s restatement of what he meant by “which is not the case” is far more convoluted than it should possibly be. Notice how he made the sentence WAY more awkward instead of clarifying what he supposedly meant instead.
K) Meesa gonna die?
L) LampDwellr goes from completely certain that it is not 50/50, to agreeing that there might be a 40% chance of the 50/50 split.
M) So, how can a person not decide if someone is bad, yet still vote for them and leave their vote on them for…how long now?
N) I was not the only one that thought LampDwellr’s vague statements about setup splits were eyebrow-raising. What did I not do? I didn’t place my vote on LampDwellr. I placed a half-hearted OMGUS vote on GrickyTimmick instead and y’all saw where that went.
O) Lamp & Gricky: Please state for the record why your votes are on me again if you will. I can’t be the only interested and/or forgot exactly why.
P) It wasn't exactly clear what he said, was it?
Q) I see a pattern of LampDwellr using completely made up statistics: 100%, 40%, 90%
R) I’d like to see LampDwellr look at me through a new lens, just like I’m doing here with him.
S) One of LampDwellr’s more reasonable statements I would say.
T) While I’m of the belief that scum are far more likely to lurk more and only post when they feel like they can capitalize on something.
U) I too would like to hear more from Seppel and everyone else for that matter.
This took me an extremely long time to go through.
Kank’s final verdict on LampDwellr as of this post:
Again, this isn't just about you. Specifically, that easy out wasn't for your benefit. I thought even a push that weak would be enough to get you going. Apparently I was right. The easy out was for everyone else; to see who decided to call me on it or who decided to join me in attacking you. As it is, we may have caught WoD in that trap.
That last bit was specifically replying to PG's sentence "I thought Stardust's vote on you was awkward, but being inexperienced, I assumed he knew what he was doing." If my logic is flawed at any point, I want to hear about it. If someone keeps their mouth shut and we mislynch because I'm stupid, that's bad for everybody. Or, at least, that's bad for the town.
Also, Tom, in what posts have I played the noob card before? I couldn't remember doing that, so I just searched my own posts and came up with nothing even hinting at that. Given the circumstances, I can't help but feel that you're trying to smear me with that line.
As I've learned recently, these "traps" have a spectacularly low chance of trapping scum.
Oh yeah? Like, less than 25% chance (more likely to kill town than a random lynch), or just not greater than 50%?
Either way, you'd agree that generally generating content is a good approach at least, yeah? I'm not going to ask you specifically what you'd look for, but regardless of WoD's alignment, I'm hoping some of those responses will help us out here, at least in the long run.
Of the 4 instances I can remember, 1 caught scum, and that scum also claimed that he was in a 3-person mason group, so I wouldn't put too much stock into that.
Yes, this is true.
Aside from WoD's reaction, what else do you feel is telling about his alignment?
Apologies for absence.
Good question! You'll notice that I haven't actually voted for him yet, because I've been trying to figure out the answer to that myself for a while now. I suppose now's a good a time as any to do that PBPA I've been meaning to do. Normally I wouldn't include everything, but there's only ten posts, so bear with me.
First post, RVS, not even a real vote. I actually don't like this, especially coming from a veteran, since it doesn't advance the game at all.
Vote for IB, for what seems a reasonable reason given that we're barely out of RVS at this point.
Maybe someone with more experience can say whether this is generally considered scummy or what, but I dislike it when people do this. Town points for free, while not committing yourself to anything at all. Boo.
Further explains his reasoning for the vote on IB.
Asking for justification from PG and helping out a newbie. I like. And then...
Thanks PG for that justification. Seems good, but also an easy way to win town points.
(split this post into two)
Now we're into my side of things. He's pointing out the obvious, but fails to see the obvious here. Could be a slip at this point if he didn't really pay attention to what I'd written.
Joining Misting in grilling GT. GT should have been grilled, but joining someone is (again) easy town points.
This is Tom's "Stardust is stupid" post, which WoD essentially ignores to continue beating at Tom. This is where it's difficult to believe this was all a mistake. I don't like this post because it's so obvious that a self-meta defense is exactly what Tom required, but WoD latches on to the fact that self-meta is bad and continues the "bad play" rumour on Tom. I feel inclined to take this as him trying to build momentum against Tom, even if that momentum doesn't get used until later.
His response to Misting pointing at me and voting for WoD. I dunno. Maybe he's telling the truth? I don't like that he claims to have not been attacking Tom though. I mean, it wasn't a vote, he didn't jump on her, but he did make a big post detailing why she was terrible for self-meta'ing. It's that sort of thing that can lead to a real wagon later, and I think WoD knows this.
Reading this over, I just realised how terrible that bolded part is. So you don't know me. What's your point? I just don't understand how a mafia veteran could think this is a good argument. I can't really call this scummy though since it's terrible no matter who you are. Maybe it's an indication that he's a little too nervous about the attention, and therefore might be scummy? Not sure how to read that.
He apologizes to Tom as well... but that doesn't really mean anything at this point. The damage is done and could well be brought up again. Well, maybe not now that we've all been talking about this so much, but you know.
Last thing, perhaps the worst...
Last Activity: Today 01:06 AM
He's still around, but not answering questions. He hasn't made any posts anywhere, so maybe he's just stopping by quickly, but I don't like that he wouldn't try to help the town out with some insight before he replaces out. Then again, could be that he just doesn't really care about the game at this point.
So! To sum all that up, WoD makes some plays for easy town cred, puts out some dirt on Tom without factoring in the whole situation (and continues to do so even after being reminded), and doesn't contribute before ducking out. Nothing here is screaming scum to me, but he's been playing an easy game so far and hasn't actually worked towards finding scum since the very end of RVS. I'd say "leaning scum" at this point, but I'm not going to vote for him until he's replaced (despite wanting to kill Iso).
I really do hope WoD comes back for one last post, though. Getting those questions answered would be very helpful. Either way, hopefully his replacement can make things a little clearer one way or the other.
However, you voted for Tom for acting a way he's acted twice as town. That is slimy enough to warrant a vote.
Vote Stardust.
On Tom, yes, I voted for her, but not because she was acting in the same way as previous games. In fact, she was acting differently. Would you say she was floundering earlier in the game, Seppel?
...when Tom was town in those two games?
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Clan RepresentativeWrath of DoG mentioned about having to drop out of the game due to lack of Internet a few days ago--anything more on that?
I'll have to answer Bolly's questions for me when I have more than a couple of minutes to work with.
Right. I was lying. That was kinda the point. I wanted to make my argument awful.
Before the whole WoD thing, I made a note in one of my posts about Stardust, after which Stardust completely dropped the whole topic until Tom forced it. At the time of my Vote, I had assumed Stardust had dropped the topic having realized the mistake, and had forgotten about the vote like I did with Wessel. However, this is evidently not the case.
I'm not a huge fan of town gambits, and I belive they should only be used in certain circumstances, this not being one of them. Especially with regards to WoD, I find these reads to be rather wishy-washy, and I don't like the ending of "My fellow townies, I should not have been allowed to do this". That last bit feels forced, which throws the motivation of the whole post into more suspicion.
I'd hardly say your name is clean, why did you think it was after such a gambit claim? And it does not knock out number 2, as you even say by pointing out that everyone else missed the extremely obvious issue with your argument. Another thing I don't like about your argument is how casually you asume that others would catch onto your argument, even before Tom revealed its flaw. How would we know it was backwards before then?
He was saying he was inexperienced, not you. And if he was refering to you, why would you want the town to not think you knew what you were doing? As I said earlier to Kank, having everyone ignore you is not a productive place to be.
This big long post ends in...nothing. Not one bit of that screams scum to you? Even after you said "We may have caught WoD in the trap"? You did not think there was something overtly scummy?
As long as we're mettaing like crazy, and since he's replacing, I'll trust your experience here Seppel and Unvote. At this point it should be fairly obvious that for me, a Vote: Stardust is in order.
@Gaming the set-up: I know this is baseless speculation, but thought it was interesting. I was also leaning towards a high likelihood that the split between genders in scum would be either equal or just differ by 1 (ie 3 male scum and 2 female scum). Furthermore, this could also mean that the setup may be a combination of 2 games where each gender has their own set of power roles seeing as each gender can only target their own gender (at least I think that's what Arcadic means). Cuz how much sense would it be to have all the scum (or most of the scum) on one side with the doc, cop, vig, etc on the other? I know it's possible, but what's the likelihood? Would that make sense?
Just some thought candy... /rambling
Signature done by perv90210
My Trade Thread | Random Buy List
Pikachudansen | Pika Pika Yukai
Wahaha... | MyAnimeList
Iso is Batman | Tamiyo lulz
Official Anime Enthusiast of [TheCrafters].
(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻
So you are saying that self-promotion is scummy? Wouldn't scum want to do the opposite and blend in?
My answer is pretty close to WoD's actually. For someone to say they are playing the same way that they did as town is completely null. If I kick a kitten every time I'm scum and then don't kick a kitten and point it out, then that meta is completely irrelevant. If someone else said, "no, he's not kicking kittens, therefore he's town", that has a lot more weight. I don't really read into meta though because I'm not a fan of looking up other games in order to determine "tells" that can be completely fabricated.
Nope, I wouldn't have. I wasn't reading into your post very much since I was going back and forth with Tom. What do you take away from that?
Jesus, take the wheel.
Bolly, I'll address this to you, but anyone can answer. What do I have to gain, as scum, by making that post? Can someone tell me?
Those were all the bits specifically addressed to me. I fly home tomorrow, so I will do a full post over the weekend, but I wanted to get this up here. I just didn't have time to read through the Kankalphabet post or the Gricky post.
This is completely true. I was a bit incensed by Kahedron's attack and ended taking it out on IB and for that I should have apologized earlier. Even if my tone of voice was incorrect, I stand by my analysis of his behaviour and my vote, though.
Yes, all my questions have been satisfactorily answered and I don't think I'll need to be asking any more noobie questions from now on.
I said the noob card has been played other times this game. Not that you had played the noob card several times this game.
I said that paragraph so you (or anyone else) wouldn't jump on me and say "well Maokun and them are playing the noob card too, so why is Stardust special?"
Please explain, I don't understand what you mean.
Cool, but that doesn't explain why you think we (or even just PG if that's the case) shouldn't assume that you know what you are doing.
Especially when you say you know exactly what you are doing.
This reeks of misrep. You're smarter than this. WoD's replacement can be analyzed later.
Unvote, Vote Tom
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Clan RepresentativeA) The only vet player that is currently leaning town for me is Gricky. If you (Bolly) were a scum player, I could see this question as a fishing attempt to find out who I would look up to among the other players for guidance, and if I answered a scum buddy of yours, then you’d find a way to use that as an advantage, and if I answered a vet town player instead, you may decide that person would be a good early target for a nightkill. I fully see my answer to this question as being more beneficial to the scum team than the town.
B) Mostly in defense of myself. I did mention in a few other posts that I did not see the guilt and/or scumminess in other (mostly) new players that others did.
C) Every player is different. You split up 5 & 6 which could have been an extension of the same question, and so I answered them separately. I don’t want you to vote for me no matter what side you are on. I don’t want the town to vote for me because it would take a number of their votes as well to lynch me.
I cannot see Stardust and Tom being on the same side. This does not look like two townies battling each other over semantics to me. Can anyone outside of these two help develop a thoughtful play-by-play between them? I’m feeling somewhat lost in the shuffle.
Now that you’ve lowered your gun off me for the moment, I would like to hear what your take is on the other players and skirmishes that have been going on recently.
Until there is a claim otherwise, I'm going to believe that this is the case. Very clever.
I agree. Tom's confusion is too genuine. If one ever flips scum, the other is cleared.
ftr, gricky I'm not new I have been playing for over 2 years.
I will try to read more in depth tomorrow.
http://forum.iwtso.com/index.php
http://iwtso.com/
Join our forum and site to Watch Simpsons free, and discuss a whole lot of other things on our forum.
We are about to have a competition on our forum, join for a chance to win $75
wwab is the best mafia player ever
Want to trade with me?
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=294434
Kank: Earlier you asked us what I felt about Lampdweller now, of the people who currently have wagons against them he is the most consistent and coherent to liking him less as scum especially as I dislike the other vote on him. And to echo Seppel the only time I have seen a gambit like the one Dusty pulled Scum did it. So of the two of them would be more willing to go after Dusty but need to do a full re-read before I change my vote.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
Can you cite where the gambit was pulled and by whom?
Day 1 Triskellion just before you joined the game, pulled by Iso claiming that Foxlet was playing differently than normal. I ended up initially voting for Iso then switching my vote off him to Vitek who dropped into a similar position to the one WoD now finds himself. Hindsight being 20/20 wish I has stuck with Iso.
Still haven't done a re read so don't wish to commit a vote to either side atm.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
Ugh. An Iso gambit.
FWIW, anything Iso does should not be something you form an opinion as a result of.
I still don't like Maokun, something is up with LampDwellr, but I'll go ahead and unvote; vote stardust for being my best lead.
Stardust (5) : Tom ; Seppel ; Misting ; Wessel ; infectiousbaloth
infectiousbaloth (4): Eron ; WoD ; Reya ; Maokun
Kankennon (1): LampDwellr
captaineddie (1): ferro_man
Maokun (1): Bolly
LampDwellr (1): Kahedron
Tom (1) : Raging Levine
Not Voting (9) - Dork Knight ; captaineddie ; Macius ; A bear ; pikachugundam ; Voxxicus ; Stardust ; Kankennon ; GrickyTimmick
With 23 alive it is 12 to lynch.
Seeking replacements for captianeddie and Wrath of Dog. Please cease posting when requesting replacement.
As always, If i have made any errors, please let me know.
Prods will be sent out later today.
My wife was on MTV with this video.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUutIZg2EpU
^^This guy. Where's your vote?
Also, what is your opinion of Maokun?
A) Not what I was saying. I was saying it was interesting that it had happened in every game you looked at. That wasn't a challenge to you.
E) I wasn't that vague.
F) I voted you - and I said this already, cut it out - because it seemed like you were preclaiming that "yeah I'll probably look scummy guys" in an effort to deflect potential criticism later. It's a noobscum move at times.
G) Nope! I did not chide you for dragging up information from past games at all.
H) We were talking about possible options for the setup and I thought your reasoning was spurious. So I explained why rather than going "nope dumb"
J) I did clarify what I meant, in multiple iterations. I was restating the part in quotation marks to explain why I opted for the simplified wording in the first place. I can't believe you're actually still pushing this nonsense, frankly.
L) I REALLY CANNOT BELIEVE that you are pushing THIS more. I did not say that I was completely certain it was not the case. I said it was not the case that we can be confident scum are 50/50 M/F. That is all I ever said. Quit it.
M) I speculated, I did not decide. There are many reasons to vote someone, and certainty is rarely the #1 reason.
O) My vote is still on you at this point because you're pushing so aggressively that I said I was 100% sure the scum weren't 50/50 M/F, and you know that's not what I said, so you must be lying. Town don't have a habit of lying, and if that is your habit as town you should quit it. If you were lying about what someone else said I might also be voting you for that.
My initial vote was because of all that "I'm sure I'm gonna get nailed for this but" stuff you were spewing, which is a frequent noobscum gesture.
Q) I am acknowledging that these statistics are made up, because they're all in HYPOTHETICAL CONVERSATIONS.
Allow me to elaborate on LampDwellr.
I think he is town. I truly do. But my belief that he is town is not because of his actions, but in spite of them. Something about mindset. I'm not familiar at all with his meta, and something about it rubs me the wrong way, but I don't see him posting what he does as scum.
What's up with me?
I don't get it, though. You think it was scummy of me to respond to Kank's meta with "hey, that's not very accurate"? And what "actions" are you even talking about?
If you truly think he is town then why does he rub you the wrong way and why do you say "something is up" with him?
Also, doesn't "I don't see him posting what he does as scum" imply that you know his meta?
No, I'm referring to a post you made much earlier in the game, I'll dig it up. It gave me a bad feel. But your mindset seems townie to me, so it may just be my error.
No. I'm an alumni from the Yanni school of kpaca d-ridery. There's a compelling philosophy of a scummy "mindset" versus a townie "mindset". (as opposed to a scum-tell driven philosophy) I don't see LampDwellr's posts coming from a scum mindset in spite of things that could be looked at as scum tells.
This post rubbed me the wrong way. Just the way that your actions in past games were presented gave me an uneasy "Why does this guy want me to know how he plays as each alignment?" feel.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Clan RepresentativeIn order to make this less messy, I have to use Word, which then screws up the quotes…
Curious.
LampDwellr is the one yelling, ranting, and making up statistics and insisting that other people (mainly me) said them, yet I’m the one being aggressive here?
Oh by the way, I never stated that I was 100% certain about ANYTHING (or even 90% for that matter).
Where did that originate? Oh yeah…
“Most likely” means having a better chance of being/occurring than the other option(s) present, definitely not a sure thing.
For instance, Barack Obama was considered to be the “most likely” candidate that was going to win on Nov 6th due to most of the various polls ran around the country. He BARELY beat Mitt Romney in the popular vote by just a few percentage points (but trounced him in the Electoral College).
So I say this still:
Whoever we lynch today will most likely be a townie. (Please note: Most likely does not mean 100%)
LampDwellr is likely a townie. (Please note: I did not use the term “most” before likely here)
If somehow we lynch LampDwellr today and he flips town, then I would probably laugh at the pure irony of the situation.
Any particular reason you rotate through different fonts of text at different, random, times?