@SilverSihhe: I appreciate your post. That is in all seriousness. I think it's probably the fairest of all the things that have been said against me in this game. I didn't see a lot of actual questions in there, however, more statements of opinions about various things, a lot of which I think I already addressed. Like, you say you didn't like how I "re-voted" Eco. in #42 and continued to press the flavor issue, and I've explained why I did that, on both points.
With respect to that explanation, #157, it seems you had two issues:
Quote from SilverSihhe »
Things I don't like about this post: again, Eco's role-played statement came from a Town perspective. I certainly agree that it read really awkwardly, but I think that's a natural reaction to "suddenly roleplay," more than anything else.
If what you are saying here is that you think it would be a natural "town" reaction, to "role-play" as a prisoner who recognizes that they are a danger to society and just wants to stay in prison, then I guess we just disagree. That was obviously not my reaction. I wasn't already assuming Eco. was scum when I persued that line, however. It just stuck out to me as odd, so I decided to try and explore it a bit.
Quote from SilverSihhe »
I also think that Axel is stretching in his assumption of why Eco said what he did:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axel I(t -ed) was almost like he was saying that his "character" i.e. his role-pm, was telling him that this was how he felt.
This in particular is a huge leap. I can look at my role-pm and pretty easily extrapolate how my "character" would feel about things. Zinda gives enough information through the dossier approach that it's fairly self-evident what kind of a person your role is. If we -wanted- to RP, it would be pretty easy, I think. Note: let's please not, because I don't like RPing -.-
Well, see that's fine. Mine doesn't suggest in any way that I'm happy or content to stay in the prison, it didn't seem likely to me that other "Town" role pms would either (given the 3rd person dossier-style formatting), and that's what I thought was oddest about Eco's response. And I was fishing to see if he was going to say this attitude came out of his role or was just something he picked up on from Zinda's opening posts and ran with. I did say that I was prepared to accept that other people's role PMs might be different though, if we got to that point, and that's still obviously true.
Addressing some tangential issues:
Attitude: I can sometimes have a ... poor ... attitude. Not most of the time, mind you, but sometimes. The times when I am at my absolute worst are when I am getting attacked for bad reasons. If someone calls me scum in a game where I am Town - and worst of all, if they do it smugly, if they claim to be "positive," or that I'm so "obviously" scum, it just might cause me to go off on tilt against them. Because they are so completely and clearly wrong, you see?
That hasn't quite happened yet this game - I'm really am more mellow these days - but I've actually had to restrain myself a few times from typing something even more snide or derisive into this thread in a reply than what I actually did.
That said, I think you might be reading more attitide into some of my replies than was actually there. Like in #47 when you say you feel I am being "snippy." I was being serious with Arn there, in as much as I felt *zero* actual anger at that point in the game, and he was asking me how much of my anger was "real." So I genuinely wanted to know how angry he actually thought I was.
There is a certain irony in that you think my #52 comes off as too "contrite" and backing down, when I felt I was being so reasonable in my response to such a completely incorrect interpretation of my post. The sarcasm you see in #92 came after a string of people saying essentially the same (imo stupid) thing - that I'm scummy because I was *emphasizing* (their words) how much I was Town. Which is both (1) wrong, and (2) not even a thing scum actually do.
Gotta run right now. Back later.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Bateleur »
Ambush Krotiq makes me laugh so much. I keep rereading the card and it keeps not having Flash. In what sense is this an ambush again? I just have visions of this huge Krotiq poorly concealed in some bushes, feeling slightly sad that his carefully planned ambushes never seem to work.
Now it's SharkFinnigan's turn. This should be interesting. It's going to be weird, because I'm basically just going to be rehashing my points against him here. I might give post numbers where I responded to Shark in more detail, if necessary.
#29- This is obviously the first post that caught any attention. Shark uses "chainsaw defense", something I'd never heard of before I Googled it. Then says he's caught 2 of 4 scum, when there's no indication how many scum there actually are in this game. Reads like he's jumping at nothing and slips up.
#59- Says the neutral is a "sk". Dislike, because the neutral win-con we've seen doesn't really match up with "SK" and mentioning it at all seems weird. I will say that his response to WoD matches what I've seen of TownShark. He was practically agreeing with me that he was scummy in Intrigue when I built a case against him. That is what gives him a town point.
#81- Another post that looks similar to what I've seen from TownShark before.
#102 and 103- This, however, is where "TownShark" starts to fall apart. In 102, Shark says he didn't really believe Kosa was scum and that his chainsaw is practically the equivalent of the "post chain" at the start of the game. But in 103, he says he won't discount it. There's a pretty big difference between "RVS chain of posts" and something you'd use as ammo later. Also says the post that kicked everything off wasn't intended as a joke, which I'll address later.
#116- One thing I noticed here is that he's saying people are overreacting to "speculating setup" when that's not what I, at least, was reacting too at all. I asked him why he was doing it, but it was just sort of in passing rather than focusing on it. Glancing back, I don't really see anyone making a huge deal about speculating about the setup, except for voting Shark for saying "There's 4 scum". But they're not suspicious of that comment for the setup speculation, so this looks like attempted deflection.
#124- I answer his questions to me in 129. As I said in 129, his response about Iso really rubs me the wrong way. He says "Leaning town" but goes on to say how a scum in Intrigue tried to pull off an attempted mass claim so we should watch Iso for that. He goes into way more detail about how a scum tried to do something similar than he does why he believes Iso to be town. Another sticking point for me is how he says "Leaning town, but not typical Iso (though it's impossible to meta Iso)". He literally, in the same sentence, tried to meta Iso with his "not typical Iso" comment. Why is this in there at all? I can't figure it out.
His comment to Axelrod feels like he's just trying to stir up some kind of attention elsewhere, either through Axelrod pushing Ecophagy or by saying "Look at them distancing".
#127- Tries an epic backtrack on his vote by saing it wasn't serious, when if you go back and look at the linked 102 and 103, he obviously intended it to get a reaction. If it wasn't a serious post, why would it get a reaction at all? If the 2 scum thing was, as he claims, a joke, why wouldn't everyone just attribute it to RVS shennanigans and skip past it? He starts to get jumpy here, saying he might be at L-3, when he had like 5 votes on him. His response to Axelrod is interesting, because he's sure stretching it to try to paint a picture of Axelrod distancing himself from Ecophagy. Then he says "oh but I doubt that's what it is". Pretty flimsy, imo.
#132- See 136 for my response to this post. Again he says his post wasn't serious. But he's already said it wasn't a joke. He's also saying it was a light-hearted comment. Then below he didn't think people would take it too seriously. This seems inconsistent with his "I wanted a reaction" line, because a non-serious post in the RVS would be mostly just ignored. Otherwise it wouldn't be the RVS. I think I saw someone word this more eloquently than I could, but I can't remember who it was.
#134- He directs Xyre to Intrigue to see his town play. As someone who was in Intrigue, I find quite a few differences between then and now. In Intrigue, when I was building a case against Shark, he seemed pretty calm and accepting. He practically agreed with me that my case was a good one. Here he's being more quick to accuse other people of being self-conscious, not to mention worrying about being at L-3 while actually at L-6. I haven't really seen the cool collected Shark from Intrigue here. Not to mention he wasn't posting much. That, and the content in his 6-posts-in-8-days was lacking. In this game, he's one of the top posters, and he's generally said a great deal. It's not a huge thing, but it does help highlight the differences in the two games. The major similarity between Intrigue and this game has been his responses to WoD's posts. But that's small beans compared with the rest of the stuff.
#167- Asks Charm_Master to clarify something, says he doesn't think Iso is scum. But he still doesn't say why. Boring post is boring.
#189- Finally gives an opinion as to who he thinks might be scum. I'd really like him to expand on this. It's interesting he mentions Ecophagy here, because his questions to Axelrod in 124 were Ecophagy-related and 127 also involved Ecophagy. Don't know what to make of this yet though.
So yeah. Obviously I think he's scum. He's got some inconsistencies, and his play isn't reminding me of Intrigue at all.
@Shark: Could you expand on post 189 with more reads of the people voting for you?
Everything scares me... kitties scare me... squirrels scare me... corpses....corpses bring forth a pletora of confusing feeling which i prefer not to dwell on...:p
So at this time you believe Axel to be scum. Is there anything besides the "I'm town" that you can point to?
Yes, his reactions to the applied pressure. I’ve been in similar situations. I’ve been in similar situations with you in the game. And I’ve been in similar situations as town and scum. So for me, it reads three ways: scummy, newb town, or rusty (no alignment). I’ve been told that Axelrod has experience, so that nullifies the newb town explanation. I straight up asked him if he was rusty. He answered my question that he just didn’t have a lot of time to play multiple games. While this isn’t an admission of rust on his part, I took it as that.
@Axelrod: When was your last completed game?
So asking people what they preferred to be called is a scum hunting technique for you? What does that tell you about people that you have played with before? I would think by now you know I'm a guy so I don't respond. What does that tell you?
I wouldn’t necessarily call it a scum-hunting technique. I do consider it a technique to see if anyone is paying attention. Most people I played before don’t even respond to the question because they know I know. Most people in this game I’ve played with before, so it’s simply a write-off. I just wanted to explain my past reasoning to asking this question (which originally started as a way to be more sensitive in my games). But for a while it was just used to see who is skimming and who is active.
Again, most people ignored me this time. But those that responded are people I haven’t played with before and I take into account they’re paying attention to the game. If someone corrects me and says “I’m a girl” later on, I’ll backtrack to see if they were paying attention earlier on. Again, it has lost it’s effectiveness.
Why does this feel like you are trying to bail out Axel?
Axel has been put on the defensive really early on in this game. He has been responding defensively to people who keep on attacking him. I have never played with him, so I’m curious to see what his offensive play is like. I gave him an out and asked him to give me some “offense”. He acquiesced and I’m awaiting to see if his offense is as scummy as his defense. I’m not going to railroad someone just because I don’t want to admit I’m wrong. If he proves I’m wrong, I will take the pressure off him. It’s not in the town’s best interest to continue to push a lynch without getting a player’s entire view. And if I was truly bailing Axel out, I would take my vote off him. My vote remains on him for now though.
He was dismissing his overly "Hey I'm town!" attitude by saying that scum wouldn't be able to fake his reaction (which they simply could), and therefore everyone having the same reaction as him would instantly be a townie (again, the "Hey I'm town!") attitude. For me, his assumptions are null.
This is an overly unfair way to phrase this, especially given how he explained earlier.
All Axel is saying, (and to be honest after that explanation I actually think it was a pretty good idea) is that he was basically fishing for initial "townie reactions" to his post, not to "HARD CONFIRM" any player that did happen to respond similarly, but just to basically give them "town points".
While yes, scum do like to get "town points" whenever they can, I can see what he's saying about scum not responding in that way.
While it obviously failed to garner any responses of that type, I respect the thought that was put into it, and I can't see it coming from a scum mindset at all.
So yeah, I won't be joining this wagon anytime soon.
The chaos and smoke had given way only to madness. Now the Guardian was instructing the prisoners - subjects - no, damn it, prisoners, to choose one of their number to execute. Merbyon's mind was racing, and it had certainly lost some pace since the last time he had truly had to use it (which, come to think of it, was more than thirty years ago.) Age and alcohol were only part of it. He'd grown complacent as well as pudgy here, locked away from the rest of the world.
A moment of clarity. Three conclusions.
First, there was somebody on the outside - somebody who the Mancers did not have control over, difficult as that was to imagine - who was trying to break the prisoners free.
Second, the Guardian had become totally unreliable. Attempts to summon it had failed completely. As far as Merbyon could discern, it hadn't shown itself since killing the outsiders and advising the prisoners to start killing each other. That prisoner, that Provocateur, had seemingly known some word to bypass the securities laid on it centuries ago. Naturally, the Mancers hadn't seen fit to share what that word was, and certainly not the "greater word" that it had referenced as well.
And third, this situation was completely and totally over his head. Crawling to the Mancers and asking them to help him regain control over his subjects would be humiliating and probably lethal to his career (what career, he asked himself, looking around.) But even worse would be failing to ask for help while the situation turned more desperate, not that Merbyon could guess how that would happen.
This was vital. The Ataghan powered...well, everything. He had to send word to them before the subjects (who had now apparently lost command of their mental facilities in addition to being dangerous, unpredictable wild talents) began killing. This time, they would answer. They hadn't answered any of his innumerable reports, requisitions, updates, memorandums, or pleas, but this time they would respond. They had to. All of Sarandar was at stake. And, not for the first time, Caloran Merbyon managed at how the Mancers had managed to put him in charge of their entire system. They never thought anything could go wrong, a cold, internal voice said. They thought the Ataghan was so foolproof that they put a fool in command.
Merbyon staggered over to the sending crystal. "We'll be in touch," Fahad Elawi had assured him, his beard concealing a no-doubt ironic smile. "Report in often. Your mission will receive the respect it deserves." In those days, when he was first sent here, he'd almost believed Elawi, that damned snake, may the jinn take him. "Oh, no hard feelings, Cal," he said jovially, chuckling a bit. "You backed the wrong horse. Happens all the time. Just politics, right?"
And it was just politics that a 25-years-younger Merbyon (still with most of his hair) had stood waiting by the crystal for hours, days, even weeks. Waiting for responses that never came. Waiting for validation of his existence. Nothing.
This time had to be different. Had to. He grabbed a sheet of parchment, scribbled something unintelligible, read it over, crumpled it, began again, and wrote:
"Prisoners are in revolt. Ataghan threatened. Guardian unresponsive. Please advise. Merbyon."
He touched the paper to the sending crystal and waited for it to begin humming softly. In a moment, the paper was ashes, and its message had appeared...wherever its twin was, whether that was deep in Mancer headquarters, as he hoped, or in some irrelevant civil bureau. So Merbyon waited again.
I don't have the quote, but I saw you guys talking about some info about scumteam numbers in the OP, and I'm now confirming that no such info was ever available there.
@Tan: See, that would be difficult because it's based on my preconceived notion of how people think and language flows, which is all rooted in the way that I, myself, think. I'm willing to say that I believe Axel is scum for reasons that other people may not accept and if that earns me scrutiny in the future then oh well but I can't explain it any better than that.
I feel like there was something about AI vs. GMan that I wanted to address before I left for work but I can't remember what it is now.
OK, gotta do some catching up, but need to reply to a couple things first.
Why will you not at least TRY to explain your thought process then? Given that this game is all about trying to interpret linguistic tells, surely you would not mind divulging them for us to at least get a peak of what you are thinking.
Looking over this post more, this post seems timid for you. I never took you as one to hold back or be afraid of how you look, but in this post, you are coming off as just that concerned your thoughts will not be accepted. Why such a concern from someone who normally is not concerned in such matters? Especially given you are not concerned about the fact that not revealing your thoughts could get you some heat later on. Why be concerned about something that will at minimum put helpful information into the thread, but not concerned about how much heat you may get later on for NOT putting said info into the thread?
@Eron: Given the nature of the ability in the OP, I say it is very valid concern to set up some rules in case we force a PR to claim. The OP presents an ability that REQUIRES the scum to name the colors of all the locks a person has to get a second kill. As for the not claiming real names, call it paranoia from Amnesia Mafia.
So you:
1. Thought it was an RVS post.
2. Feel that he was over defensive (of an RVS post)
3. Now know that he didn't mean it as an RVS post.
This feels like you are going back and forth on Shark, but you use it to cast suspicion on Ecophagy in this next bit:
You seem to me manipulating what I am saying here to make me look bad. I ORIGINALLY thought it was a pure RVS vote. In fact I still do, as I don't see the fuss over the initial post. What I am concerned about is his defensiveness of said post once he was put under pressure about it. He had no reason to be defensive about it if it was indeed an RVS post.
You have several reasons why you don't like Shark here. You claim above that you're vote is on Axel for x,y and z reasons and you also cast suspicion on Eco and AI in this post. I really feel like you are just trying to get something to stick here. Vote Tanarin
As far as being suspicious of Eco's vote, I stand by what I said, he put emotions to a post that I only saw as humorous. What I am wondering though is where you think I was throwing suspicion on AI. Let's take a look back at my post shall we?
Quote from Tanarin »
Edit: I see you posted more. Why the hate on FoSes? You are using the line of reasoning that "Only Scum FoS people" and Scum FoS to remain non-committal but the fact is I AM committed. My vote is on Axelrod, and I don't have 2 votes, and at the time I was suspicious of AI. Your whole argument falls over given that info.
That is the only line in my post where I mention AI. Notice the bolded part? It is in the past tense, meaning as of now I am not suspicious of him. You go and imply I am throwing mud at him as part of your reasoning to vote me. I just fail to see where I am doing such a thing in the post you use as justification to vote me.
How is it any different than burying a question in a wall of text to see if someone is paying attention? I've been burned by only glossing over walls of text and been branded as "not paying attention" or "ignoring the points against them". It's not the best gauge of activity, but I've done it so many times it's lost it's efficacy. If I want a direct response from someone I'll make it clear. I know that not everyone does this. So, if someone glosses over any question in any wall of text it's a nice way to backtrack and see if they have an excuse for their evasion. Maybe I'll hide a Waldo in a wall of text and give town points to whoever sees it first from now on...
On the Axelrod thing...
How is this any different from asking someone their reads? That's what I'm doing here. Axel hasn't given a hint of how he views things besides explications for previous actions. I want to give him a chance to tell us his views on the game. This type of information is very important later. He said he was going to do it and I'm waiting until he actually does it.
Still reading up on the PBPAs from Caex and Silver, but figured I'd point out the scummiest post in the thread so far:
The key word is "nothing." Kosakosa says that there's nothing to be gained from analyzing the way Caex posts his PBPAs.
The key words actually are "nothing about his allegiance". Surely having his step-by-step opinion on others is nice, but that shouldn't be taken as something that defines anyone as town.
Here's the thing: Kosa warns against trusting/listening to Caex, for no other reason than the chance that he's scum. There's no real justification provided as to why he might be scum, AFAICT - it comes across as simply spreading paranoia.
I said it before: kpaca's play at Seasons made me paranoid. There's is a chance for everyone to be scum, and I just pointed out what was Caex's.
This bit is interesting. Kosa use some very waffly rhetoric here, and the literal meaning of these words is hard to read out. The impression I get is that he's attributing the Shark wagon to Caex - it doesn't say that outright, but it does between the lines: "most prolific", "first pressures against Shark."
Note, on the other hand, that Caex didn't actually vote for Shark (or did so very late, but I remember failing to find his vote earlier). So, yeh. Good job on that.
Caex did vote for Shark, albeit later on, and I liked his reasoning as I have pressured and voted Shark as well, but you can't deny that Caex was the one pressuring the most from him since the start (#82). Iso defended Shark more than once, and Charm_Master even accused (and voted) Caex of working up Shark (#98).
Well, there's Kosa's justification for thinking Caex is scum: if Shark is town, then Caex is responsible for his wagon and his hence scummy.
I've never said Caex was scum. In fact, I said the opposite. I said his act of reviewing people couldn't be used to define him as town. His reasoning, on the other hand, makes him pretty townish in my opinion.
Admittedly, there is some unclear language here once again, but I figure I'm right to read the "over 9000" thing as Kosa saying that he'd want to lynch Caex if Shark flips town.
I would be very inclined to ask many questions for him, yes. Wouldn't you?
Recall also that this is the same Kosa who voted (relatively late) on the Shark wagon and voted again, relatively late, on the currently active Axelrod wagon.
My reasoning for voting both of them was pretty solid, excluding my mistake about Axel, which I have already acknowledged. He was scummy enough before it and still is though, as you can see by the votecount.
Also, it's the same Kosa that I voted for after he made this post, where he successfully barns me despite the fact that I hadn't said anything yet, amongst other things
That post was a silly taunt with a mistake, in case you haven't noted by the emoticon, Iso's anwser, and my correction down below.
So, yeh.
Kosa's play smells of a hidden agenda. He's attracted to fully-fledged wagons, he plays down the trustworthiness of analysts and spreads paranoia, he attributes the Shark wagon to the wrong people and then tries to set up a lynch on one of them.
Can we lynch him now?
Bold part: so would you tell us who started the reasoning behind Shark's actions? Xyre was the first to point it out, but he didn't pursue it.
Please, are you really implying that I'm trying to lynch Caex after I said I agree with him, most of his points, and that he's town to me? All my arguments responding to Axel about Caex's actions make sense, read them again.
You distorted my words and jumped over me in such a way, almost parodial, that I'm inclined to think that the whole point of your post was to check how I would react and defend myself when pointlessly pressured. As you can't meta me because I have never defended myself over being accusated, you wanted to create one to compare with and capitalise at in the event I get pressed over a real thing later on this game. Fish more.
"> #39: Xyre's vote. Reason: "4 scum." I have no problem with the reasoning. It's early on so I can see the vote. Right after Eco, so could be opportunistic, but overall not scummy.
#104: desCoures: Reason: "too much self-justification; self-conscious". Reading at that again, isn't that the point of a defense? To dismiss because of faulty argument or justify your reasoning? I can go with the self-conscious line of reasoning as scum can panic under pressure. Not really scummy.
#106: KosaKosa: Reason: "Hot potato reasoning". Fair, already commented on last statement is a bit off. Slightly OMGUS. But something about his posts make me think he's town? I don't know. Gut here, but post is scummy.
#131: Caex Kothar: Reason: "Didn't like last 2 posts": Fair reason. Only other person (aside from KK) to have stated suspicion before vote. Still mixed on you Caex, but I can accept the reasoning for the vote.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Ask the right questions in the right way and truth is inevitable."
—Lazav
More seriously, though - how far do you actually think Tanarin is scum?
90% - A nothing attack, FoS, and the fact he tried to deflect my attack by saying I should be focusing on the other wagons instead of him make me feel good that he is scum.
I don't understand. In my readings of Mafia history it says that the FoS has just fallen out of favor (I think that was on MS or something). I just don't get why the FoS by Tan is such a big deal in this case. He pointed out statements from 2 people, felt one was scummier than the other, and FoS the second.
Would an IGMEOY be any different here?
Well first off MS is a completely different meta so if you are using their history its like comparing apples and oranges.
But on Sally the FoS has really been only used by scum and people wanting to troll me for the past year or so.
No, an IGMEOY wouldn't be any different.
Also there are other things such as his nothing attack and trying to deflect my attacks that make him scum in addition to the FoS.
@Caex: Actually, if you knew my role in Seasons, you would know that it is, in fact, comparable to this one overall. I had 5 "Layers of Time" in that game and when the Aeon Clock moved to/past 0 five times, I would become an Unkillable Triple Voter. So the Locks in this game are reminiscent to me of my Layers of Time in Seasons.
OK, gotta do some catching up, but need to reply to a couple things first.
Why will you not at least TRY to explain your thought process then? Given that this game is all about trying to interpret linguistic tells, surely you would not mind divulging them for us to at least get a peak of what you are thinking.
Looking over this post more, this post seems timid for you. I never took you as one to hold back or be afraid of how you look, but in this post, you are coming off as just that concerned your thoughts will not be accepted. Why such a concern from someone who normally is not concerned in such matters? Especially given you are not concerned about the fact that not revealing your thoughts could get you some heat later on. Why be concerned about something that will at minimum put helpful information into the thread, but not concerned about how much heat you may get later on for NOT putting said info into the thread?
Because I really don't think it matters. I'm full of insane theories as far as Mafia goes, and more often than not, people tell me I'm a ****ty player and then start ignoring me when I present them. .-. (See: Magical Girl Mafia.) In addition, I can't make long posts on my phone because my phone will eat them, and I really don't have time except before work to make large posts - and they usually have to be catchup posts. So in short, it's completely detrimental for me to go into detail as to what I don't like about Axel's posts because I'd rather be listened to than ignored through the game and no one's going to agree with why I'm voting him anyway. It's just a waste of my time. I've expressed why I think he's scum, and if people don't accept that I think his thought process isn't wholesome and natural, then it's an exercise in futility to attempt to break it down further. Let sleeping lions lie, as they say.
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
#70- So, right off, he appears to be in what I would call his normal joking mood. He's cracking a joke about my post about the Town wanting to stay in prison. He's not jumping on me for it. He's laughing with me. That's all fine. He's joking with other people. That's all fine. I'd even say it was a good start.
But then I don't like where he says he didn't like Caex's post that "seems forced" and that he should probably "be looked into later." That's just an odd thing to say and an odd way to say it. It's like he's advising other people to do something, as opposed to doing it himself, and then why "later?" What's going to happen later? It's like tossing a little dirt and then just walking away.
Then the Mass Color Claim proposal. The thing about that is I would generally credit Iso with being more observant. He comes across an an intelligent guy most of the time, so it's harder for me to accept that he just completely skipped over that rather significant detail in the opening post which makes this proposal such a terrible idea. It seems like he would basically have had to just not click the spoiler where it says "Mafia" to have missed it. That seems rather careless.
Now, Caex has actually given Iso his best defense as to this point because Caex is saying Iso apparently didn't read the rules in another game they played (where Iso was town, I assume). So, if that's true it at least makes Iso's claim more plausible. Still really careless though. Apparently for at least the second time.
#79- And see, the paranoid in me can totally see a scum Iso persuing this line. The "I'm going to pretend I missed the rules in the opening post" line, because, if people believe it, that's going to indirectly make him look more town. Iso is definitely one of the people I could imagine running a minor gambit like that.
#143- Here's possibly the main thing. Right up until this post, Iso hasn't said anything about my posting "style." He hasn't said anything about my posts looking "self-conscious," or too thought out, or anything. He's bantered with me. He's joked. This vote almost seems to come from out of nowhere, tucked in at the end of a much longer post where he's talking mostly about other people. I was like, how do you end up with a vote for me at the end of all that? Because you didn't understand where I was going with my remarks to Eco (okay, but now I've explained it, which you have yet to acknowledge) and for this whole "self-conscious" thing, which is just incredibly weak.
He is definitely just waggoning here behind several other people who have said they didn't like the tone of my early posts (which Iso himself did not seem to have a problem with). And all of a sudden he's not just voting me for "pressure" or whatever, but says he want me to hang? Right now. That's a very sudden and extreme turn. And it's scummy.
There's no follow up to that. No further explanation or argument about what he means when he says I'm being too self-conscious or even how that's scummy in the first place. Maybe he feels this goes without saying?
#158- His response when I make my big post is really bad. It's like he either didn't read it, or was just hoping to characterize it as a meltdown for everyone else so they would dismiss it. I explained exactly what his supposed issue with me over Eco was all about, and he blows it off like I didn't say anything.
#161- All I'm doing is "repeating myself?" That's such a ridiculous mischaracterization it is litereally laughable. And when pressed further about this he retreats even further into vague generalities.
#166- Like this one. He can't put it in words, but it just seems like I'm not doing what he thinks I want him to think I'm doing.
#171- Too thought out. This is the bottom line? Okay. Sure. It feels like he's just grasping at straws in order to maintain there's still some basis for voting me.
#187- Now he's just flatly saying it's too difficult for him to explain why he finds my posting scummy, because it's personal to him and his own notions of how people think and how language flows. I mean it's almost like he's waving a white flag here - I give up trying to explain it, if you think I'm suspicious for it, so be it....
I don't like his apparent carelessness with not reading the rules post. I don't like his sudden hopping on the bandwagon to vote for me. I don't like the reasons he gave for said hopping on, and how strongly he suddenly felt about them. I don't like his complete dismissal of my explanation and the way he completely mischaracterized it as "just repeating myself" - which incidentally is a completely different thing from "too self conscious." And I don't like how he said, when challenged, he just couldn't explain his position any better because it was too personal to him. Well, how convenient for you, I guess.
Short version:
Unvote;
Vote: Iso
Maybe I'll find someone scummier to vote for later. This will do for now.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Bateleur »
Ambush Krotiq makes me laugh so much. I keep rereading the card and it keeps not having Flash. In what sense is this an ambush again? I just have visions of this huge Krotiq poorly concealed in some bushes, feeling slightly sad that his carefully planned ambushes never seem to work.
Because I really don't think it matters. I'm full of insane theories as far as Mafia goes, and more often than not, people tell me I'm a ****ty player and then start ignoring me when I present them. .-. (See: Magical Girl Mafia.) In addition, I can't make long posts on my phone because my phone will eat them, and I really don't have time except before work to make large posts - and they usually have to be catchup posts. So in short, it's completely detrimental for me to go into detail as to what I don't like about Axel's posts because I'd rather be listened to than ignored through the game and no one's going to agree with why I'm voting him anyway. It's just a waste of my time. I've expressed why I think he's scum, and if people don't accept that I think his thought process isn't wholesome and natural, then it's an exercise in futility to attempt to break it down further. Let sleeping lions lie, as they say.
Dear Iso:
Post reasoning for your vote on Axel if you don't want to be ignored. And please don't try to self-meta your way out of this.
Love, WoD, in every game ever that we've both been in and I haven't had a kill available to point your way for incredibly irritating posts just like this one.
In fact, please just post your reasoning anyway. You've been pushing Axel very hard in a rather scummy fashion. Please, tell me there's a reason for that that isn't "Because I am scumIso and I have no reasons other than the fact that I'm looking for an easy lynch".
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
Everything scares me... kitties scare me... squirrels scare me... corpses....corpses bring forth a pletora of confusing feeling which i prefer not to dwell on...:p
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
@SilverSihhe: I appreciate your post. That is in all seriousness. I think it's probably the fairest of all the things that have been said against me in this game. I didn't see a lot of actual questions in there, however, more statements of opinions about various things, a lot of which I think I already addressed. Like, you say you didn't like how I "re-voted" Eco. in #42 and continued to press the flavor issue, and I've explained why I did that, on both points.
With respect to that explanation, #157, it seems you had two issues:
If what you are saying here is that you think it would be a natural "town" reaction, to "role-play" as a prisoner who recognizes that they are a danger to society and just wants to stay in prison, then I guess we just disagree. That was obviously not my reaction. I wasn't already assuming Eco. was scum when I persued that line, however. It just stuck out to me as odd, so I decided to try and explore it a bit.
Well, see that's fine. Mine doesn't suggest in any way that I'm happy or content to stay in the prison, it didn't seem likely to me that other "Town" role pms would either (given the 3rd person dossier-style formatting), and that's what I thought was oddest about Eco's response. And I was fishing to see if he was going to say this attitude came out of his role or was just something he picked up on from Zinda's opening posts and ran with. I did say that I was prepared to accept that other people's role PMs might be different though, if we got to that point, and that's still obviously true.
Addressing some tangential issues:
Attitude: I can sometimes have a ... poor ... attitude. Not most of the time, mind you, but sometimes. The times when I am at my absolute worst are when I am getting attacked for bad reasons. If someone calls me scum in a game where I am Town - and worst of all, if they do it smugly, if they claim to be "positive," or that I'm so "obviously" scum, it just might cause me to go off on tilt against them. Because they are so completely and clearly wrong, you see?
That hasn't quite happened yet this game - I'm really am more mellow these days - but I've actually had to restrain myself a few times from typing something even more snide or derisive into this thread in a reply than what I actually did.
That said, I think you might be reading more attitide into some of my replies than was actually there. Like in #47 when you say you feel I am being "snippy." I was being serious with Arn there, in as much as I felt *zero* actual anger at that point in the game, and he was asking me how much of my anger was "real." So I genuinely wanted to know how angry he actually thought I was.
There is a certain irony in that you think my #52 comes off as too "contrite" and backing down, when I felt I was being so reasonable in my response to such a completely incorrect interpretation of my post. The sarcasm you see in #92 came after a string of people saying essentially the same (imo stupid) thing - that I'm scummy because I was *emphasizing* (their words) how much I was Town. Which is both (1) wrong, and (2) not even a thing scum actually do.
Gotta run right now. Back later.
Thanks =) I always try to be as fair in my cases as I can be, although I do tend to color some things in a negative light based on my perceptions. Hopefully I'll be able to work that out eventually...my goal is to get to the point where I can be objective in language, and keep my convictions back to guide my words rather than infect them.
I like this post a great deal, and I am prepared to accept that a lot of what I have seen that I don't like about some of your posts thusfar is, as Ced noted,
Quote from Ced »
Beyond that point, however, I reckon the case is motivated more by ill will (/tunneling, whatever), rather than actual suspicious activity, particularly the 'tude thing.
There are still a few posts of Axel's that I find scummy, but I can see how I might have lost myself in the "ill will," to borrow Ced's language, generated by some of Axel's posts. To that end, at this point in time I am willing to Unvote.
I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the Iso wagon that's threatening to form. He seems to be both confidant and suffering from misconceptions at the same time, and I would like more time to try to figure out where I stand on him. I do feel that while his posts with regards to Axel specifically have been weak overall, his other posts have been fairly solid, and I like his thought process with regards to the mass color claim, although I disagree with it (meaning I can see honest town intentions therein, even if I think it's a bad idea).
Next stops for me to look into are Shark, Vitek, and KosaKosa. Shark's been a wagon for most of the game and I've been largely ignoring it to focus on Axel; I don't like Vitek's latest post at all; and something in my gut has been sitting poorly with regards to KosaKosa's recent posts (but I don't have anything more concrete than that at this time...need to look into it more).
It’s not in the town’s best interest to continue to push a lynch without getting a player’s entire view. And if I was truly bailing Axel out, I would take my vote off him. My vote remains on him for now though.
I know Vitek already commented on this, but it was the one thing that really struck me during my reread. Why, Arnnaria, are you still voting for Axel? I just cannot get your reasoning. You want to get a more complete picture of Axel's playstyle (i.e. offensive capabilities) so the town doesn't mislynch based on one half of behavior (a stance I can totally get behind). Yet, you keep a vote on him which is likely going to keep him on the defensive.
What gets me, though, is that you fail to address this in your response to Vitek:
How is this any different from asking someone their reads? That's what I'm doing here. Axel hasn't given a hint of how he views things besides explications for previous actions. I want to give him a chance to tell us his views on the game. This type of information is very important later. He said he was going to do it and I'm waiting until he actually does it.
Now, maybe you misunderstood Vitek or maybe I'm misunderstanding him. Regardless, maybe you can give me a direct answer. Why keep your vote on Axel if your vote is contrary to your desires for Axel?
I know Vitek already commented on this, but it was the one thing that really struck me during my reread. Why, Arnnaria, are you still voting for Axel? I just cannot get your reasoning. You want to get a more complete picture of Axel's playstyle (i.e. offensive capabilities) so the town doesn't mislynch based on one half of behavior (a stance I can totally get behind). Yet, you keep a vote on him which is likely going to keep him on the defensive.
What gets me, though, is that you fail to address this in your response to Vitek:
Now, maybe you misunderstood Vitek or maybe I'm misunderstanding him. Regardless, maybe you can give me a direct answer. Why keep your vote on Axel if your vote is contrary to your desires for Axel?
I find Axel scummy. I am waiting for Axel's reads on the other players. He hasn't acquiesced at all yet, even though he promised he would. That in itself is a reason to keep my vote on him. If he's not going to follow through with his promises, then I see no reason to take my vote off him.
Unless his voting Iso post was his reads. In that case, my vote continues to stay on him.
Basically, to summarize: I gave Axel and opportunity to present his case or cases against whoever he thought was scum. This is absolutely important to us so we can distinguish and dissect his reads later. However, he has not followed through with his promise. So, unless he does sometime soon, I'm going to continue voting for him for his scum reasons and for not following through when he promised something rather simple.
You know, in 7+ years I'm virtually certain I have never invited people to vote for me when I was Town. It's just so completely contrary to my mindset.
I might have challenged people to vote me when I was scum though, when I was posturing. Just saying.
I find Axel scummy. I am waiting for Axel's reads on the other players. He hasn't acquiesced at all yet, even though he promised he would. That in itself is a reason to keep my vote on him. If he's not going to follow through with his promises, then I see no reason to take my vote off him.
Dude, that was yesterday. How quickly were you expecting this to happen? I already reviewed Iso. You saw that, yes? I'm going to do more. These things happen to take me a lot of time to do them right.
Plus, Caex is already doing these PBPAS of the most suspicious people and I'm liking those quite a bit, so it feels a little weird to come back behind him and do essentially the same thing. I kind of just want to go "agree" or "disagree" with what he's saying. But I'll give my own take.
Unless what you are really looking for is just a quick list of leaning scummy/not scummy for everyone, which is something I have done on occacions in the past. Those don't tend to go over well, however, because then people say it's "scummy" to give off a list of reads without anything more and demand you explain why you are leaning whatever way you are leaning.
@Caex: I'm going to go review SF now, and I'll comment on your PBPA as part of that. I already know I don't like how he's posted this game. My main issue is how inexperienced he's coming off and how much that could be clouding my impression.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Bateleur »
Ambush Krotiq makes me laugh so much. I keep rereading the card and it keeps not having Flash. In what sense is this an ambush again? I just have visions of this huge Krotiq poorly concealed in some bushes, feeling slightly sad that his carefully planned ambushes never seem to work.
We've got a whole ton of humor excuses and hand-waving, some content that's good and some that's bad (as normal for basically anyone), some good defenses provided against weak attacks, and some highly suspicious timing.
I eagerly await Axel's response.
I think Axel is only paying attention to the negative points against him. I don't think he's paying attention to the game at all. I asked him a question a couple pages back. The question was neutral and I was looking for him to further explain the nuances in his post. However, he has ignored it and I'm not going to dig for it or even point it out. I know, that if I came off as accusatory or derisive, he probably would've responded. But he keeps on glossing over nearly everything else that's going on in this game except his self preservation.
This isn't town thinking. If Axel was commentating on other people's wagons and providing insight into them, then he wouldn't have my suspicion. If he started responding to the questions directly at him, then he wouldn't have my suspicion. If he upheld his promises for more content outside his personal bubble, then he wouldn't have my suspicion.
It's just weird how this wagon is forming. I called him out very early on during RVS or right before it ended. I've been applying pressure and have even given him enough opportunity to explain himself. But, "it was just flavor, haha" isn't a good enough explanation when the flavor explanations he makes keep on coming. And this is the disconnect:
I am not voting for Axel for flavor. I'm voting for Axel for the way he twisting that flavor to point out the fact that he was Town. This has been a major distinction that I think is getting ignored because Axel has a solid defense against this initial suspicion. But as time goes on, he continues to bury himself. If he is town, he needs to step up to the plate and start playing like it. If he is not, then he will get lynched eventually.
Plus, Caex is already doing these PBPAS of the most suspicious people and I'm liking those quite a bit, so it feels a little weird to come back behind him and do essentially the same thing. I kind of just want to go "agree" or "disagree" with what he's saying. But I'll give my own take.
A point of contention: Caex is doing these PBPA's off of players who have the highest post counts in the game. Caex is not doing PBPA's of the "most suspicious people."
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
Posting and voting restrictions aren't all that uncommon here. Personally I find it amusing that the most green player of the bunch got stuck with a restriction.
I can't even attempt to vote. My ability to vote later is dependent upon special conditions in my role pm, but I think I should keep that secret.
I need to go, and I'll be really busy now till tomorrow. Expect content Friday afternoon.
My assumption here is that your ability to vote is currently under some number of locks. Assuming that you don't gain something by not having them unlocked, I feel it would be best you tell us how to unlock your vote, so we can get you fully involved in the game. Without it, we're already one townie down.
...and who are the most suspicious people? As a quantitative view, which people are getting the most votes? Compare those to who Caex is PBPAing.
In summary, which thread are you reading?
My assumption here is that your ability to vote is currently under some number of locks. Assuming that you don't gain something by not having them unlocked, I feel it would be best you tell us how to unlock your vote, so we can get you fully involved in the game. Without it, we're already one townie down.
Not saying this isn't a good idea for an experienced player, but what are the odds that he has a restriction and doesn't get -something- when he unlocks? Like, I'm not sure that having the newest player in the game have a permanent double-vote would be a good idea. I'm not meaning this in a hostile way...I certainly don't mean to come off as cruel to new players (being as I am one myself). I'm just leery of toddlers with bazookas.
Arnnaria -- noob question. Where are you guys finding the list of how many posts who has? I haven't been able to find that feature in the forums yet =.=;;
So yes, the more prolific posters are the ones that are in higher scrutiny right now from the votes. This could either mean that all the people with high post counts are playing scummy; or, the people with the high post counts have more ammunition against them and thus are gaining higher votes.
Arnnaria -- noob question. Where are you guys finding the list of how many posts who has? I haven't been able to find that feature in the forums yet =.=;;
Go to the main forum. Look for the "Replies" column; there is a number there. Click on the number and it will show you how many posts per person are in the thread.
Not saying this isn't a good idea for an experienced player, but what are the odds that he has a restriction and doesn't get -something- when he unlocks? Like, I'm not sure that having the newest player in the game have a permanent double-vote would be a good idea. I'm not meaning this in a hostile way...I certainly don't mean to come off as cruel to new players (being as I am one myself). I'm just leery of toddlers with bazookas.
Unless Asension demonstrates otherwise, I'm happy to work under the assumption that he's not an idiot. As long as he actually thinks before using any ability, then it's fine.
Arnnaria -- noob question. Where are you guys finding the list of how many posts who has? I haven't been able to find that feature in the forums yet =.=;;
Click the number of posts next to the thread. Ta-da!
PPE:
Quote from Arnnaria »
So yes, the more prolific posters are the ones that are in higher scrutiny right now from the votes. This could either mean that all the people with high post counts are playing scummy; or, the people with the high post counts have more ammunition against them and thus are gaining higher votes.
Or that people being voted have to post more to defend themselves. You're confusing case and effect.
Posting and voting restrictions aren't all that uncommon here. Personally I find it amusing that the most green player of the bunch got stuck with a restriction.
Can't tell if bad wording or if actual inside information.
That being said I am totally for an ability color lock.
My assumption here is that your ability to vote is currently under some number of locks. Assuming that you don't gain something by not having them unlocked, I feel it would be best you tell us how to unlock your vote, so we can get you fully involved in the game. Without it, we're already one townie down.
I'm on my phone right now so I can't make an advanced post, but I will keep this here so I don't have to repeat myself over and over again:
If you cannot agree over the fact that making a PBPA about some players does not define the maker's allegiance, please tell me how you think it does. Because although in my opinion Caex seems town, the PBPA doesn't add townie points for him in my view.
The above was exactly what I meant with my comment on Axel's. Please read that post again and stop twisting my words, tymv.
Can't tell if bad wording or if actual inside information.
That being said I am totally for an ability color lock.
I took this to mean, "here on Salvation," not "here in this game," although I suppose that's certainly a possibility as well. If you're referring to his assessment of Asenion, I don't think there's any question that he's the newest player here...and that's a matter of public record.
To get to my main point: I don't get the point of this post, Arnn. Why bother with this?
Because Axel's premise was faulty. If he was going to reply to every Caex PBPA, he needed to know the impetus behind Caex creating them. He had that wrong, so I corrected him.
I'd love to, but you keep on backtracking. In the post I originally picked out, you said it meant "nothing about his allegiance". Now you're saying that it doesn't "define allegiance", which is totally different.
How is it totally different? Both sentences mean the same. It says nothing, ergo, doesn't define.
Posting and voting restrictions aren't all that uncommon here. Personally I find it amusing that the most green player of the bunch got stuck with a restriction.
Is this a reference to Lock colors or MtG playstyles?
So yes, the more prolific posters are the ones that are in higher scrutiny right now from the votes. This could either mean that all the people with high post counts are playing scummy; or, the people with the high post counts have more ammunition against them and thus are gaining higher votes.
Well Axelrod's pretty obviously scum at this point.
As for the rest of us, I would assume it's because other players haven't posted more. I've actually stopped reading the Tan/GMan/AI exchange because I just don't want to. I realize I'm notorious for wallposts, myself, but none of it is interesting. That said, I haven't glazed ALL of the content, but enough to know where I stand on at least one of them.
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
This time I decided to not pilfer Caex's links, or even go back and re-read what he said first to try and keep my opinions an untainted as possible.
#29 is where everything starts for SF. His earlier posts were just RVS stuff. And this post also looked like it was just another RVS post - but there was that remark about 2 down, 2 to go. So it would seem this is either one of three things.
(1) He's Town and making a careless assumption about the number of Mafia in the game. That's possible, and was, in fact, my first impression.
(2) He's Town and making a carefully crafted post to cause discussion and generate reads. This is kind of what SF will claim he was doing later, but that just seems completely bogus to me.
(3) He's scum and inadvertantly slipped because he knows the actual number of Mafia in the game. This one is also possible, of course, and worthy of following up on, but this post by itself certainly wouldn't be enought to lynch someone on.
Couple of people jump on him for the possible slip. Xyre first* (which is kind of a nice little point for Xyre). Then Ced remarks that it's "interesting", with no vote and says he wants to hear more. And Caex says basically the same thing. Kosakosa calls it "the tell of the century" but doesn't vote because "you gotta EARN that first non-RVS vote". Which I thought was kind of funny.
*sidenote: Xyre wasn't actually the first one to vote at least semi-seriously for SF. That was Eco. in the post immediately prior. Eco. wasn't voting because of the possible "slip" however. He voted because he thought SF was acting too jumpy and nervy. I didn't really agree with that. Like I said, my initial impression was just that SF was horsing around and having fun during the RVS. I didn't detect "nerves" at all.
#59 is SF's initial explanation for his post. He says he was just assuming 4 scum in a 21 player game with a SK. 5 could be a possibility also. He also says he'll go with "jumpy" in response to Eco.'s post.
I literally just understood that when he says "spurring convo" here he means "spurring conversation." So, he's also now claiming the post was intended to spur conversation. Which still seems odd to me. How does that post "spur" conversation? For all intents and purposes it just looks like a RVS thing. I would have been muc more satisfied with him just saying, eh, I was assuming, as opposed to I was trying to "spur conversation."
I don't think anything one way or the other about him referring to the Neutral role as a "SK." I doubt the Mafia have more info. about that role than the Town does, so it would be speculation either way. Unless you thought HE was the neutral role, but then that would just invalidate suspecting him for inside knowledge about 4 scum. It's almost a point in his favor in as much as it shows a tendancy to just assume things without evidence.
#102 is where he answers the "SK" remark. This is reasonable enough, especially his use of "quotes" around the SK title to suggest that it isn't really a traditional SK role, but close enough.
The next parts are what really first attracted my interest, however. When he's explaining if his vote for KosaKosa was serious or not. He says NO (which is what I would expect him to say) but then goes on to say it wasn't a "joke" either. And that's strange. How could it not be a serious vote but also not a joke vote? His explanation, again, is this idea he was actually trying to "spur conversation" with that post. Which, again, I find implausible.
Here's where my feelings about SF's experience or lack thereof start to kick in. Because I could see someone relatively inexperienced claiming that they made a certain post to "spur conversation" and "get reads" when that was not actually the case at the time. Because that's the kind of thing that sounds good to say, and makes you look like you know what you are doing in the game. And that is kind of the vibe I'm getting off SF with these posts.
#103 SF further clarifies what he meant by "chainsaw defense." Says it's HIGHLY unlikely, but doesn't actually dismiss it. He says he'll put it on the "backburner" for now. So appears to now be saying his non-serious vote was not completely non-serious. It's these kinds of posts that just keep pinging the scumdar. Like, he wants to keep out there this small bit of suspicion while disclaiming that he's actually serious about it.
#116 I agree with SF here that he wasn't doing all that much set-up speculation. I don't know how much flack he was actually getting for that part of his post, but in as much as he was getting flack for "speculating" - as opposed to getting flack for the possible slip, he's right.
He's wrong, however, when he tells Kosakosa he wasn't trying to put any suspicion on him. When you say you think something is highly unlikely BUT you won't discount it and will keep it on the backburner for now - you are, in fact, casting suspicion on said person. Maybe not a lot of suspicion, but you are still floating it out there.
Then he details a bit more about his experience, which doesn't really tell me a whole lot. He hasn't played a lot here. Maybe a bit more on Mafiascum. I'm still feeling like he's relatively inexperienced. I would say his "feel free to meta me" remark displays at least some amount of confidence, which is good. Also, maybe there's a language thing going on, because his posts don't feel like they're written particularly well.
#124 This is kind of SF's big "reads" post. And it's underwhelming.
"Leaning Town" on Iso, but then proceeds to explain how he has raised some eyebrows and still needs to be watched.
Arnnaria: not scummy. This is fine. Also basically barns Arn's opinion about me, which is less fine, but whatever.
Caex: Has been "too neutral" in his posting? Like, he seems to think Caex has gone back on forth on him, saying something positive and then something negative. Says "slightly scum" which I'm in total disagreement with.
Then he makes that remark about me and voting Eco. "Why do you think he's scum. If you think he's scum shouldn't you be trying to get others to vote for him? Or are you just distancing." Which is really just inflammatory. It's a little like the "when did you stop beating your wife" kind of question. I have no idea where the "distancing" thing even came from, as I don't think SF has said anything about Eco. at all in the game. Really don't care for this.
#127 Kosakosa attacks SF more for the way SF disclaimed he was trying to cast any suspicion on KK. SF again maintains it was not a serious vote and he wasn't trying to cast any suspicion. NOW however, he is feeling more suspicion because (in his opinion) Kosakosa has overreacted to the way SF left the door open on him. He's too "self-conscious" Arghhh. That phrase again. When you come at someone and they come back at you, that is not freaking being too "self-conscious." That is just normal human behavior. I don't like SF blowing it off as "well, I wasn't being serious, but you totally overreacted to my post, so NOW I am more serious." That is scum play.
But, it's also what I think of as more experienced scum play. And here again is the thing: SF doesn't come across as all that experienced.
Other parts of this post come off as genuine, like when he says he didn't want to "dismiss" his post as just a joke when it generated all these reactions.
I'm tired of writing, and there have been a ton of posts from other people while I've been doing this. I see a lot of things I don't like about SF, but no smoking guns. A lot of what I don't like could possibly be chalked up to inexperience and/or different playing styles. I feel like he's just going to be hard for me to read in general the way he writes (kind of like DRey is the same for me, and I got burned bad by DRey once). He's still on the radar, but below Iso for me.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Bateleur »
Ambush Krotiq makes me laugh so much. I keep rereading the card and it keeps not having Flash. In what sense is this an ambush again? I just have visions of this huge Krotiq poorly concealed in some bushes, feeling slightly sad that his carefully planned ambushes never seem to work.
A point of contention: Caex is doing these PBPA's off of players who have the highest post counts in the game. Caex is not doing PBPA's of the "most suspicious people."
Um, that's not a "point of contention." The people Caex is doing are the ones who have garnered the most suspicion, regardless of whether or not they are also the top posters (though, note the correlation. This is why scum like to lurk)
I wasn't saying "these are the people Caex has claimed are the most suspicious" and I'm not sure why you would think that would be a huge deal even if that's what I thought.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Bateleur »
Ambush Krotiq makes me laugh so much. I keep rereading the card and it keeps not having Flash. In what sense is this an ambush again? I just have visions of this huge Krotiq poorly concealed in some bushes, feeling slightly sad that his carefully planned ambushes never seem to work.
I think Axel voted Iso just to try and defed himself. I now think Axel is scum.
You really are new, right?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Bateleur »
Ambush Krotiq makes me laugh so much. I keep rereading the card and it keeps not having Flash. In what sense is this an ambush again? I just have visions of this huge Krotiq poorly concealed in some bushes, feeling slightly sad that his carefully planned ambushes never seem to work.
I can't even attempt to vote. My ability to vote later is dependent upon special conditions in my role pm, but I think I should keep that secret.
I need to go, and I'll be really busy now till tomorrow. Expect content Friday afternoon.
Okay. While I am not relishing the idea of you regaining your vote and coming back and voting for me, can you say - without disclosing anything that you feel needs to be kept secret - if regaining your vote is dependant on something other people have to do, or if it's something you will be able to do on your own?
Can't tell if bad wording or if actual inside information.
That being said I am totally for an ability color lock.
I realize DV claimed midterms and essentially excused himself until Friday, but I haven't much cared for the very few posts he's randomly thrown into the thread. What do you mean you are "for" an ability color lock?
Well Axelrod's pretty obviously scum at this point.
Look at this guy trying to get me on tilt. Seriously, look at that. After I just explained how it sometimes happens to Silver.
No way I believe that's a coincidence, folks.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Bateleur »
Ambush Krotiq makes me laugh so much. I keep rereading the card and it keeps not having Flash. In what sense is this an ambush again? I just have visions of this huge Krotiq poorly concealed in some bushes, feeling slightly sad that his carefully planned ambushes never seem to work.
With respect to that explanation, #157, it seems you had two issues:
If what you are saying here is that you think it would be a natural "town" reaction, to "role-play" as a prisoner who recognizes that they are a danger to society and just wants to stay in prison, then I guess we just disagree. That was obviously not my reaction. I wasn't already assuming Eco. was scum when I persued that line, however. It just stuck out to me as odd, so I decided to try and explore it a bit.
Well, see that's fine. Mine doesn't suggest in any way that I'm happy or content to stay in the prison, it didn't seem likely to me that other "Town" role pms would either (given the 3rd person dossier-style formatting), and that's what I thought was oddest about Eco's response. And I was fishing to see if he was going to say this attitude came out of his role or was just something he picked up on from Zinda's opening posts and ran with. I did say that I was prepared to accept that other people's role PMs might be different though, if we got to that point, and that's still obviously true.
Addressing some tangential issues:
Attitude: I can sometimes have a ... poor ... attitude. Not most of the time, mind you, but sometimes. The times when I am at my absolute worst are when I am getting attacked for bad reasons. If someone calls me scum in a game where I am Town - and worst of all, if they do it smugly, if they claim to be "positive," or that I'm so "obviously" scum, it just might cause me to go off on tilt against them. Because they are so completely and clearly wrong, you see?
That hasn't quite happened yet this game - I'm really am more mellow these days - but I've actually had to restrain myself a few times from typing something even more snide or derisive into this thread in a reply than what I actually did.
That said, I think you might be reading more attitide into some of my replies than was actually there. Like in #47 when you say you feel I am being "snippy." I was being serious with Arn there, in as much as I felt *zero* actual anger at that point in the game, and he was asking me how much of my anger was "real." So I genuinely wanted to know how angry he actually thought I was.
There is a certain irony in that you think my #52 comes off as too "contrite" and backing down, when I felt I was being so reasonable in my response to such a completely incorrect interpretation of my post. The sarcasm you see in #92 came after a string of people saying essentially the same (imo stupid) thing - that I'm scummy because I was *emphasizing* (their words) how much I was Town. Which is both (1) wrong, and (2) not even a thing scum actually do.
Gotta run right now. Back later.
#59- Says the neutral is a "sk". Dislike, because the neutral win-con we've seen doesn't really match up with "SK" and mentioning it at all seems weird. I will say that his response to WoD matches what I've seen of TownShark. He was practically agreeing with me that he was scummy in Intrigue when I built a case against him. That is what gives him a town point.
#81- Another post that looks similar to what I've seen from TownShark before.
#102 and 103- This, however, is where "TownShark" starts to fall apart. In 102, Shark says he didn't really believe Kosa was scum and that his chainsaw is practically the equivalent of the "post chain" at the start of the game. But in 103, he says he won't discount it. There's a pretty big difference between "RVS chain of posts" and something you'd use as ammo later. Also says the post that kicked everything off wasn't intended as a joke, which I'll address later.
#116- One thing I noticed here is that he's saying people are overreacting to "speculating setup" when that's not what I, at least, was reacting too at all. I asked him why he was doing it, but it was just sort of in passing rather than focusing on it. Glancing back, I don't really see anyone making a huge deal about speculating about the setup, except for voting Shark for saying "There's 4 scum". But they're not suspicious of that comment for the setup speculation, so this looks like attempted deflection.
#124- I answer his questions to me in 129. As I said in 129, his response about Iso really rubs me the wrong way. He says "Leaning town" but goes on to say how a scum in Intrigue tried to pull off an attempted mass claim so we should watch Iso for that. He goes into way more detail about how a scum tried to do something similar than he does why he believes Iso to be town. Another sticking point for me is how he says "Leaning town, but not typical Iso (though it's impossible to meta Iso)". He literally, in the same sentence, tried to meta Iso with his "not typical Iso" comment. Why is this in there at all? I can't figure it out.
His comment to Axelrod feels like he's just trying to stir up some kind of attention elsewhere, either through Axelrod pushing Ecophagy or by saying "Look at them distancing".
#127- Tries an epic backtrack on his vote by saing it wasn't serious, when if you go back and look at the linked 102 and 103, he obviously intended it to get a reaction. If it wasn't a serious post, why would it get a reaction at all? If the 2 scum thing was, as he claims, a joke, why wouldn't everyone just attribute it to RVS shennanigans and skip past it? He starts to get jumpy here, saying he might be at L-3, when he had like 5 votes on him. His response to Axelrod is interesting, because he's sure stretching it to try to paint a picture of Axelrod distancing himself from Ecophagy. Then he says "oh but I doubt that's what it is". Pretty flimsy, imo.
#132- See 136 for my response to this post. Again he says his post wasn't serious. But he's already said it wasn't a joke. He's also saying it was a light-hearted comment. Then below he didn't think people would take it too seriously. This seems inconsistent with his "I wanted a reaction" line, because a non-serious post in the RVS would be mostly just ignored. Otherwise it wouldn't be the RVS. I think I saw someone word this more eloquently than I could, but I can't remember who it was.
#134- He directs Xyre to Intrigue to see his town play. As someone who was in Intrigue, I find quite a few differences between then and now. In Intrigue, when I was building a case against Shark, he seemed pretty calm and accepting. He practically agreed with me that my case was a good one. Here he's being more quick to accuse other people of being self-conscious, not to mention worrying about being at L-3 while actually at L-6. I haven't really seen the cool collected Shark from Intrigue here. Not to mention he wasn't posting much. That, and the content in his 6-posts-in-8-days was lacking. In this game, he's one of the top posters, and he's generally said a great deal. It's not a huge thing, but it does help highlight the differences in the two games. The major similarity between Intrigue and this game has been his responses to WoD's posts. But that's small beans compared with the rest of the stuff.
#167- Asks Charm_Master to clarify something, says he doesn't think Iso is scum. But he still doesn't say why. Boring post is boring.
#189- Finally gives an opinion as to who he thinks might be scum. I'd really like him to expand on this. It's interesting he mentions Ecophagy here, because his questions to Axelrod in 124 were Ecophagy-related and 127 also involved Ecophagy. Don't know what to make of this yet though.
So yeah. Obviously I think he's scum. He's got some inconsistencies, and his play isn't reminding me of Intrigue at all.
@Shark: Could you expand on post 189 with more reads of the people voting for you?
{Magic: The RPG}
Yes, his reactions to the applied pressure. I’ve been in similar situations. I’ve been in similar situations with you in the game. And I’ve been in similar situations as town and scum. So for me, it reads three ways: scummy, newb town, or rusty (no alignment). I’ve been told that Axelrod has experience, so that nullifies the newb town explanation. I straight up asked him if he was rusty. He answered my question that he just didn’t have a lot of time to play multiple games. While this isn’t an admission of rust on his part, I took it as that.
@Axelrod: When was your last completed game?
I wouldn’t necessarily call it a scum-hunting technique. I do consider it a technique to see if anyone is paying attention. Most people I played before don’t even respond to the question because they know I know. Most people in this game I’ve played with before, so it’s simply a write-off. I just wanted to explain my past reasoning to asking this question (which originally started as a way to be more sensitive in my games). But for a while it was just used to see who is skimming and who is active.
Again, most people ignored me this time. But those that responded are people I haven’t played with before and I take into account they’re paying attention to the game. If someone corrects me and says “I’m a girl” later on, I’ll backtrack to see if they were paying attention earlier on. Again, it has lost it’s effectiveness.
Axel has been put on the defensive really early on in this game. He has been responding defensively to people who keep on attacking him. I have never played with him, so I’m curious to see what his offensive play is like. I gave him an out and asked him to give me some “offense”. He acquiesced and I’m awaiting to see if his offense is as scummy as his defense. I’m not going to railroad someone just because I don’t want to admit I’m wrong. If he proves I’m wrong, I will take the pressure off him. It’s not in the town’s best interest to continue to push a lynch without getting a player’s entire view. And if I was truly bailing Axel out, I would take my vote off him. My vote remains on him for now though.
All Axel is saying, (and to be honest after that explanation I actually think it was a pretty good idea) is that he was basically fishing for initial "townie reactions" to his post, not to "HARD CONFIRM" any player that did happen to respond similarly, but just to basically give them "town points".
While yes, scum do like to get "town points" whenever they can, I can see what he's saying about scum not responding in that way.
While it obviously failed to garner any responses of that type, I respect the thought that was put into it, and I can't see it coming from a scum mindset at all.
So yeah, I won't be joining this wagon anytime soon.
A moment of clarity. Three conclusions.
First, there was somebody on the outside - somebody who the Mancers did not have control over, difficult as that was to imagine - who was trying to break the prisoners free.
Second, the Guardian had become totally unreliable. Attempts to summon it had failed completely. As far as Merbyon could discern, it hadn't shown itself since killing the outsiders and advising the prisoners to start killing each other. That prisoner, that Provocateur, had seemingly known some word to bypass the securities laid on it centuries ago. Naturally, the Mancers hadn't seen fit to share what that word was, and certainly not the "greater word" that it had referenced as well.
And third, this situation was completely and totally over his head. Crawling to the Mancers and asking them to help him regain control over his subjects would be humiliating and probably lethal to his career (what career, he asked himself, looking around.) But even worse would be failing to ask for help while the situation turned more desperate, not that Merbyon could guess how that would happen.
This was vital. The Ataghan powered...well, everything. He had to send word to them before the subjects (who had now apparently lost command of their mental facilities in addition to being dangerous, unpredictable wild talents) began killing. This time, they would answer. They hadn't answered any of his innumerable reports, requisitions, updates, memorandums, or pleas, but this time they would respond. They had to. All of Sarandar was at stake. And, not for the first time, Caloran Merbyon managed at how the Mancers had managed to put him in charge of their entire system. They never thought anything could go wrong, a cold, internal voice said. They thought the Ataghan was so foolproof that they put a fool in command.
Merbyon staggered over to the sending crystal. "We'll be in touch," Fahad Elawi had assured him, his beard concealing a no-doubt ironic smile. "Report in often. Your mission will receive the respect it deserves." In those days, when he was first sent here, he'd almost believed Elawi, that damned snake, may the jinn take him. "Oh, no hard feelings, Cal," he said jovially, chuckling a bit. "You backed the wrong horse. Happens all the time. Just politics, right?"
And it was just politics that a 25-years-younger Merbyon (still with most of his hair) had stood waiting by the crystal for hours, days, even weeks. Waiting for responses that never came. Waiting for validation of his existence. Nothing.
This time had to be different. Had to. He grabbed a sheet of parchment, scribbled something unintelligible, read it over, crumpled it, began again, and wrote:
"Prisoners are in revolt. Ataghan threatened. Guardian unresponsive. Please advise. Merbyon."
He touched the paper to the sending crystal and waited for it to begin humming softly. In a moment, the paper was ashes, and its message had appeared...wherever its twin was, whether that was deep in Mancer headquarters, as he hoped, or in some irrelevant civil bureau. So Merbyon waited again.
Axelrod (5) - Vitek, Tanarin, Silver, Arnnaria, Kosakosa
Shark (3) - Eco, dC, Caex
Kosakosa (2) - Shark, ced
Iso (2) - WoD, Charm
Arnnaria (2) - Xyre, Alpha
Eco (1) - Axelrod
WoD (1) - Iso
Tanarin (1) - Guardman
I don't have the quote, but I saw you guys talking about some info about scumteam numbers in the OP, and I'm now confirming that no such info was ever available there.
"...a talisman against all evil, so long as you obey me."
OK, gotta do some catching up, but need to reply to a couple things first.
Why will you not at least TRY to explain your thought process then? Given that this game is all about trying to interpret linguistic tells, surely you would not mind divulging them for us to at least get a peak of what you are thinking.
Looking over this post more, this post seems timid for you. I never took you as one to hold back or be afraid of how you look, but in this post, you are coming off as just that concerned your thoughts will not be accepted. Why such a concern from someone who normally is not concerned in such matters? Especially given you are not concerned about the fact that not revealing your thoughts could get you some heat later on. Why be concerned about something that will at minimum put helpful information into the thread, but not concerned about how much heat you may get later on for NOT putting said info into the thread?
@Eron: Given the nature of the ability in the OP, I say it is very valid concern to set up some rules in case we force a PR to claim. The OP presents an ability that REQUIRES the scum to name the colors of all the locks a person has to get a second kill. As for the not claiming real names, call it paranoia from Amnesia Mafia.
You seem to me manipulating what I am saying here to make me look bad. I ORIGINALLY thought it was a pure RVS vote. In fact I still do, as I don't see the fuss over the initial post. What I am concerned about is his defensiveness of said post once he was put under pressure about it. He had no reason to be defensive about it if it was indeed an RVS post.
As far as being suspicious of Eco's vote, I stand by what I said, he put emotions to a post that I only saw as humorous. What I am wondering though is where you think I was throwing suspicion on AI. Let's take a look back at my post shall we?
That is the only line in my post where I mention AI. Notice the bolded part? It is in the past tense, meaning as of now I am not suspicious of him. You go and imply I am throwing mud at him as part of your reasoning to vote me. I just fail to see where I am doing such a thing in the post you use as justification to vote me.
Unvote Vote Eron
Come join us in the MTGSalvation chat ||| My trade thread. ||| My Personal Modern Blog: The Fetchlands
On the question thing...
How is it any different than burying a question in a wall of text to see if someone is paying attention? I've been burned by only glossing over walls of text and been branded as "not paying attention" or "ignoring the points against them". It's not the best gauge of activity, but I've done it so many times it's lost it's efficacy. If I want a direct response from someone I'll make it clear. I know that not everyone does this. So, if someone glosses over any question in any wall of text it's a nice way to backtrack and see if they have an excuse for their evasion. Maybe I'll hide a Waldo in a wall of text and give town points to whoever sees it first from now on...
On the Axelrod thing...
How is this any different from asking someone their reads? That's what I'm doing here. Axel hasn't given a hint of how he views things besides explications for previous actions. I want to give him a chance to tell us his views on the game. This type of information is very important later. He said he was going to do it and I'm waiting until he actually does it.
Not at all. As I said, I also think Caex is town. More on below.
The key words actually are "nothing about his allegiance". Surely having his step-by-step opinion on others is nice, but that shouldn't be taken as something that defines anyone as town.
I said it before: kpaca's play at Seasons made me paranoid. There's is a chance for everyone to be scum, and I just pointed out what was Caex's.
Caex did vote for Shark, albeit later on, and I liked his reasoning as I have pressured and voted Shark as well, but you can't deny that Caex was the one pressuring the most from him since the start (#82). Iso defended Shark more than once, and Charm_Master even accused (and voted) Caex of working up Shark (#98).
I've never said Caex was scum. In fact, I said the opposite. I said his act of reviewing people couldn't be used to define him as town. His reasoning, on the other hand, makes him pretty townish in my opinion.
I would be very inclined to ask many questions for him, yes. Wouldn't you?
My reasoning for voting both of them was pretty solid, excluding my mistake about Axel, which I have already acknowledged. He was scummy enough before it and still is though, as you can see by the votecount.
That post was a silly taunt with a mistake, in case you haven't noted by the emoticon, Iso's anwser, and my correction down below.
Bold part: so would you tell us who started the reasoning behind Shark's actions? Xyre was the first to point it out, but he didn't pursue it.
Please, are you really implying that I'm trying to lynch Caex after I said I agree with him, most of his points, and that he's town to me? All my arguments responding to Axel about Caex's actions make sense, read them again.
You distorted my words and jumped over me in such a way, almost parodial, that I'm inclined to think that the whole point of your post was to check how I would react and defend myself when pointlessly pressured. As you can't meta me because I have never defended myself over being accusated, you wanted to create one to compare with and capitalise at in the event I get pressed over a real thing later on this game. Fish more.
#39: Xyre's vote. Reason: "4 scum." I have no problem with the reasoning. It's early on so I can see the vote. Right after Eco, so could be opportunistic, but overall not scummy.
#104: desCoures: Reason: "too much self-justification; self-conscious". Reading at that again, isn't that the point of a defense? To dismiss because of faulty argument or justify your reasoning? I can go with the self-conscious line of reasoning as scum can panic under pressure. Not really scummy.
#106: KosaKosa: Reason: "Hot potato reasoning". Fair, already commented on last statement is a bit off. Slightly OMGUS. But something about his posts make me think he's town? I don't know. Gut here, but post is scummy.
#131: Caex Kothar: Reason: "Didn't like last 2 posts": Fair reason. Only other person (aside from KK) to have stated suspicion before vote. Still mixed on you Caex, but I can accept the reasoning for the vote.
—Lazav
_______________________________________________
Mafia Stats
Summary:
Total Win %: 40%
Total Scum Win %: 60%
Total Town Win %: 20%
Total Neutral Win %: 0%
I have a feeling this is going to be a long game.
90% - A nothing attack, FoS, and the fact he tried to deflect my attack by saying I should be focusing on the other wagons instead of him make me feel good that he is scum.
Well first off MS is a completely different meta so if you are using their history its like comparing apples and oranges.
But on Sally the FoS has really been only used by scum and people wanting to troll me for the past year or so.
No, an IGMEOY wouldn't be any different.
Also there are other things such as his nothing attack and trying to deflect my attacks that make him scum in addition to the FoS.
That's it I am going full Jay Cutler on this game.
How is it stupid? It clearly points to you being hyper-aware of what you're doing, which indicates your self-consciousness.
A flip.
@Caex: Actually, if you knew my role in Seasons, you would know that it is, in fact, comparable to this one overall. I had 5 "Layers of Time" in that game and when the Aeon Clock moved to/past 0 five times, I would become an Unkillable Triple Voter. So the Locks in this game are reminiscent to me of my Layers of Time in Seasons.
Show me quotes.
Bull****.
...wait, I'm not voting Axelrod?
Unvote, Vote Axelrod
I could have sworn I changed my vote to him.
Because I really don't think it matters. I'm full of insane theories as far as Mafia goes, and more often than not, people tell me I'm a ****ty player and then start ignoring me when I present them. .-. (See: Magical Girl Mafia.) In addition, I can't make long posts on my phone because my phone will eat them, and I really don't have time except before work to make large posts - and they usually have to be catchup posts. So in short, it's completely detrimental for me to go into detail as to what I don't like about Axel's posts because I'd rather be listened to than ignored through the game and no one's going to agree with why I'm voting him anyway. It's just a waste of my time. I've expressed why I think he's scum, and if people don't accept that I think his thought process isn't wholesome and natural, then it's an exercise in futility to attempt to break it down further. Let sleeping lions lie, as they say.
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
Short version:
Unvote;
Vote: Iso
Maybe I'll find someone scummier to vote for later. This will do for now.
Post reasoning for your vote on Axel if you don't want to be ignored. And please don't try to self-meta your way out of this.
Love, WoD, in every game ever that we've both been in and I haven't had a kill available to point your way for incredibly irritating posts just like this one.
In fact, please just post your reasoning anyway. You've been pushing Axel very hard in a rather scummy fashion. Please, tell me there's a reason for that that isn't "Because I am scumIso and I have no reasons other than the fact that I'm looking for an easy lynch".
Also, @ you calling Axel an easy lynch.
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
Tune in tomorrow for more!
Question before I go:
@Axelrod, Arnnaria, and Kosakosa: What are your thoughts on my PBPA of SharkFinnigan?
{Magic: The RPG}
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
Thanks =) I always try to be as fair in my cases as I can be, although I do tend to color some things in a negative light based on my perceptions. Hopefully I'll be able to work that out eventually...my goal is to get to the point where I can be objective in language, and keep my convictions back to guide my words rather than infect them.
I like this post a great deal, and I am prepared to accept that a lot of what I have seen that I don't like about some of your posts thusfar is, as Ced noted,
There are still a few posts of Axel's that I find scummy, but I can see how I might have lost myself in the "ill will," to borrow Ced's language, generated by some of Axel's posts. To that end, at this point in time I am willing to Unvote.
I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the Iso wagon that's threatening to form. He seems to be both confidant and suffering from misconceptions at the same time, and I would like more time to try to figure out where I stand on him. I do feel that while his posts with regards to Axel specifically have been weak overall, his other posts have been fairly solid, and I like his thought process with regards to the mass color claim, although I disagree with it (meaning I can see honest town intentions therein, even if I think it's a bad idea).
Next stops for me to look into are Shark, Vitek, and KosaKosa. Shark's been a wagon for most of the game and I've been largely ignoring it to focus on Axel; I don't like Vitek's latest post at all; and something in my gut has been sitting poorly with regards to KosaKosa's recent posts (but I don't have anything more concrete than that at this time...need to look into it more).
I know Vitek already commented on this, but it was the one thing that really struck me during my reread. Why, Arnnaria, are you still voting for Axel? I just cannot get your reasoning. You want to get a more complete picture of Axel's playstyle (i.e. offensive capabilities) so the town doesn't mislynch based on one half of behavior (a stance I can totally get behind). Yet, you keep a vote on him which is likely going to keep him on the defensive.
What gets me, though, is that you fail to address this in your response to Vitek:
Now, maybe you misunderstood Vitek or maybe I'm misunderstanding him. Regardless, maybe you can give me a direct answer. Why keep your vote on Axel if your vote is contrary to your desires for Axel?
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
Good summary of the case against him. Need to read it more in depth than I have, so I will do it later when I have time.
I find Axel scummy. I am waiting for Axel's reads on the other players. He hasn't acquiesced at all yet, even though he promised he would. That in itself is a reason to keep my vote on him. If he's not going to follow through with his promises, then I see no reason to take my vote off him.
Unless his voting Iso post was his reads. In that case, my vote continues to stay on him.
Basically, to summarize: I gave Axel and opportunity to present his case or cases against whoever he thought was scum. This is absolutely important to us so we can distinguish and dissect his reads later. However, he has not followed through with his promise. So, unless he does sometime soon, I'm going to continue voting for him for his scum reasons and for not following through when he promised something rather simple.
You know, in 7+ years I'm virtually certain I have never invited people to vote for me when I was Town. It's just so completely contrary to my mindset.
I might have challenged people to vote me when I was scum though, when I was posturing. Just saying.
Dude, that was yesterday. How quickly were you expecting this to happen? I already reviewed Iso. You saw that, yes? I'm going to do more. These things happen to take me a lot of time to do them right.
Plus, Caex is already doing these PBPAS of the most suspicious people and I'm liking those quite a bit, so it feels a little weird to come back behind him and do essentially the same thing. I kind of just want to go "agree" or "disagree" with what he's saying. But I'll give my own take.
Unless what you are really looking for is just a quick list of leaning scummy/not scummy for everyone, which is something I have done on occacions in the past. Those don't tend to go over well, however, because then people say it's "scummy" to give off a list of reads without anything more and demand you explain why you are leaning whatever way you are leaning.
@Caex: I'm going to go review SF now, and I'll comment on your PBPA as part of that. I already know I don't like how he's posted this game. My main issue is how inexperienced he's coming off and how much that could be clouding my impression.
I think Axel is only paying attention to the negative points against him. I don't think he's paying attention to the game at all. I asked him a question a couple pages back. The question was neutral and I was looking for him to further explain the nuances in his post. However, he has ignored it and I'm not going to dig for it or even point it out. I know, that if I came off as accusatory or derisive, he probably would've responded. But he keeps on glossing over nearly everything else that's going on in this game except his self preservation.
This isn't town thinking. If Axel was commentating on other people's wagons and providing insight into them, then he wouldn't have my suspicion. If he started responding to the questions directly at him, then he wouldn't have my suspicion. If he upheld his promises for more content outside his personal bubble, then he wouldn't have my suspicion.
It's just weird how this wagon is forming. I called him out very early on during RVS or right before it ended. I've been applying pressure and have even given him enough opportunity to explain himself. But, "it was just flavor, haha" isn't a good enough explanation when the flavor explanations he makes keep on coming. And this is the disconnect:
I am not voting for Axel for flavor. I'm voting for Axel for the way he twisting that flavor to point out the fact that he was Town. This has been a major distinction that I think is getting ignored because Axel has a solid defense against this initial suspicion. But as time goes on, he continues to bury himself. If he is town, he needs to step up to the plate and start playing like it. If he is not, then he will get lynched eventually.
A point of contention: Caex is doing these PBPA's off of players who have the highest post counts in the game. Caex is not doing PBPA's of the "most suspicious people."
My cube: http://cubetutor.com/viewcube/9981
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
My cube: http://cubetutor.com/viewcube/9981
My cube: http://cubetutor.com/viewcube/9981
Now that you've told us this, you can just use FoS, or any kind of pseudo-vote you like. You should also tell us how we can get you voting.
I need to go, and I'll be really busy now till tomorrow. Expect content Friday afternoon.
My cube: http://cubetutor.com/viewcube/9981
...That must be an awfully weird role =/
Posting and voting restrictions aren't all that uncommon here. Personally I find it amusing that the most green player of the bunch got stuck with a restriction.
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
My assumption here is that your ability to vote is currently under some number of locks. Assuming that you don't gain something by not having them unlocked, I feel it would be best you tell us how to unlock your vote, so we can get you fully involved in the game. Without it, we're already one townie down.
Kosakosa 27 (leaning Scum)
Caex Kothar 27 (Town)
Arnnaria 27 (Town)
Iso 25 (Leaning Town)
Axelrod 22 (Strongly Leaning Scum)
Player's with more than 20 posts...
Not saying this isn't a good idea for an experienced player, but what are the odds that he has a restriction and doesn't get -something- when he unlocks? Like, I'm not sure that having the newest player in the game have a permanent double-vote would be a good idea. I'm not meaning this in a hostile way...I certainly don't mean to come off as cruel to new players (being as I am one myself). I'm just leery of toddlers with bazookas.
Arnnaria -- noob question. Where are you guys finding the list of how many posts who has? I haven't been able to find that feature in the forums yet =.=;;
Post counts based upon last vote update...
Axelrod: 22 posts [5 Votes]
Shark: 16 posts [3 Votes]
Kosakosa: 27 Posts [2 Votes]
Iso: 25 Posts [2 Votes]
Arnnaria: 28 Posts [2 Votes]
Eco: 9 Posts [1 Vote]
WoD: 8 Posts [1 Vote]
Tanarin: 6 Posts [1 Vote]
So yes, the more prolific posters are the ones that are in higher scrutiny right now from the votes. This could either mean that all the people with high post counts are playing scummy; or, the people with the high post counts have more ammunition against them and thus are gaining higher votes.
Go to the main forum. Look for the "Replies" column; there is a number there. Click on the number and it will show you how many posts per person are in the thread.
Unless Asension demonstrates otherwise, I'm happy to work under the assumption that he's not an idiot. As long as he actually thinks before using any ability, then it's fine.
Click the number of posts next to the thread. Ta-da!
PPE:
Or that people being voted have to post more to defend themselves. You're confusing case and effect.
Can't tell if bad wording or if actual inside information.
That being said I am totally for an ability color lock.
How do you know he's a townie?
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
If you cannot agree over the fact that making a PBPA about some players does not define the maker's allegiance, please tell me how you think it does. Because although in my opinion Caex seems town, the PBPA doesn't add townie points for him in my view.
The above was exactly what I meant with my comment on Axel's. Please read that post again and stop twisting my words, tymv.
I took this to mean, "here on Salvation," not "here in this game," although I suppose that's certainly a possibility as well. If you're referring to his assessment of Asenion, I don't think there's any question that he's the newest player here...and that's a matter of public record.
What are you trying to achieve with this post?
Because Axel's premise was faulty. If he was going to reply to every Caex PBPA, he needed to know the impetus behind Caex creating them. He had that wrong, so I corrected him.
How is it totally different? Both sentences mean the same. It says nothing, ergo, doesn't define.
Are you ignoring me?
Is this a reference to Lock colors or MtG playstyles?
Well Axelrod's pretty obviously scum at this point.
As for the rest of us, I would assume it's because other players haven't posted more. I've actually stopped reading the Tan/GMan/AI exchange because I just don't want to. I realize I'm notorious for wallposts, myself, but none of it is interesting. That said, I haven't glazed ALL of the content, but enough to know where I stand on at least one of them.
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
#29 is where everything starts for SF. His earlier posts were just RVS stuff. And this post also looked like it was just another RVS post - but there was that remark about 2 down, 2 to go. So it would seem this is either one of three things.
(1) He's Town and making a careless assumption about the number of Mafia in the game. That's possible, and was, in fact, my first impression.
(2) He's Town and making a carefully crafted post to cause discussion and generate reads. This is kind of what SF will claim he was doing later, but that just seems completely bogus to me.
(3) He's scum and inadvertantly slipped because he knows the actual number of Mafia in the game. This one is also possible, of course, and worthy of following up on, but this post by itself certainly wouldn't be enought to lynch someone on.
Couple of people jump on him for the possible slip. Xyre first* (which is kind of a nice little point for Xyre). Then Ced remarks that it's "interesting", with no vote and says he wants to hear more. And Caex says basically the same thing. Kosakosa calls it "the tell of the century" but doesn't vote because "you gotta EARN that first non-RVS vote". Which I thought was kind of funny.
*sidenote: Xyre wasn't actually the first one to vote at least semi-seriously for SF. That was Eco. in the post immediately prior. Eco. wasn't voting because of the possible "slip" however. He voted because he thought SF was acting too jumpy and nervy. I didn't really agree with that. Like I said, my initial impression was just that SF was horsing around and having fun during the RVS. I didn't detect "nerves" at all.
#59 is SF's initial explanation for his post. He says he was just assuming 4 scum in a 21 player game with a SK. 5 could be a possibility also. He also says he'll go with "jumpy" in response to Eco.'s post.
I literally just understood that when he says "spurring convo" here he means "spurring conversation." So, he's also now claiming the post was intended to spur conversation. Which still seems odd to me. How does that post "spur" conversation? For all intents and purposes it just looks like a RVS thing. I would have been muc more satisfied with him just saying, eh, I was assuming, as opposed to I was trying to "spur conversation."
I don't think anything one way or the other about him referring to the Neutral role as a "SK." I doubt the Mafia have more info. about that role than the Town does, so it would be speculation either way. Unless you thought HE was the neutral role, but then that would just invalidate suspecting him for inside knowledge about 4 scum. It's almost a point in his favor in as much as it shows a tendancy to just assume things without evidence.
#102 is where he answers the "SK" remark. This is reasonable enough, especially his use of "quotes" around the SK title to suggest that it isn't really a traditional SK role, but close enough.
The next parts are what really first attracted my interest, however. When he's explaining if his vote for KosaKosa was serious or not. He says NO (which is what I would expect him to say) but then goes on to say it wasn't a "joke" either. And that's strange. How could it not be a serious vote but also not a joke vote? His explanation, again, is this idea he was actually trying to "spur conversation" with that post. Which, again, I find implausible.
Here's where my feelings about SF's experience or lack thereof start to kick in. Because I could see someone relatively inexperienced claiming that they made a certain post to "spur conversation" and "get reads" when that was not actually the case at the time. Because that's the kind of thing that sounds good to say, and makes you look like you know what you are doing in the game. And that is kind of the vibe I'm getting off SF with these posts.
#103 SF further clarifies what he meant by "chainsaw defense." Says it's HIGHLY unlikely, but doesn't actually dismiss it. He says he'll put it on the "backburner" for now. So appears to now be saying his non-serious vote was not completely non-serious. It's these kinds of posts that just keep pinging the scumdar. Like, he wants to keep out there this small bit of suspicion while disclaiming that he's actually serious about it.
#116 I agree with SF here that he wasn't doing all that much set-up speculation. I don't know how much flack he was actually getting for that part of his post, but in as much as he was getting flack for "speculating" - as opposed to getting flack for the possible slip, he's right.
He's wrong, however, when he tells Kosakosa he wasn't trying to put any suspicion on him. When you say you think something is highly unlikely BUT you won't discount it and will keep it on the backburner for now - you are, in fact, casting suspicion on said person. Maybe not a lot of suspicion, but you are still floating it out there.
Then he details a bit more about his experience, which doesn't really tell me a whole lot. He hasn't played a lot here. Maybe a bit more on Mafiascum. I'm still feeling like he's relatively inexperienced. I would say his "feel free to meta me" remark displays at least some amount of confidence, which is good. Also, maybe there's a language thing going on, because his posts don't feel like they're written particularly well.
#124 This is kind of SF's big "reads" post. And it's underwhelming.
"Leaning Town" on Iso, but then proceeds to explain how he has raised some eyebrows and still needs to be watched.
Arnnaria: not scummy. This is fine. Also basically barns Arn's opinion about me, which is less fine, but whatever.
Caex: Has been "too neutral" in his posting? Like, he seems to think Caex has gone back on forth on him, saying something positive and then something negative. Says "slightly scum" which I'm in total disagreement with.
Then he makes that remark about me and voting Eco. "Why do you think he's scum. If you think he's scum shouldn't you be trying to get others to vote for him? Or are you just distancing." Which is really just inflammatory. It's a little like the "when did you stop beating your wife" kind of question. I have no idea where the "distancing" thing even came from, as I don't think SF has said anything about Eco. at all in the game. Really don't care for this.
#127 Kosakosa attacks SF more for the way SF disclaimed he was trying to cast any suspicion on KK. SF again maintains it was not a serious vote and he wasn't trying to cast any suspicion. NOW however, he is feeling more suspicion because (in his opinion) Kosakosa has overreacted to the way SF left the door open on him. He's too "self-conscious" Arghhh. That phrase again. When you come at someone and they come back at you, that is not freaking being too "self-conscious." That is just normal human behavior. I don't like SF blowing it off as "well, I wasn't being serious, but you totally overreacted to my post, so NOW I am more serious." That is scum play.
But, it's also what I think of as more experienced scum play. And here again is the thing: SF doesn't come across as all that experienced.
Other parts of this post come off as genuine, like when he says he didn't want to "dismiss" his post as just a joke when it generated all these reactions.
I'm tired of writing, and there have been a ton of posts from other people while I've been doing this. I see a lot of things I don't like about SF, but no smoking guns. A lot of what I don't like could possibly be chalked up to inexperience and/or different playing styles. I feel like he's just going to be hard for me to read in general the way he writes (kind of like DRey is the same for me, and I got burned bad by DRey once). He's still on the radar, but below Iso for me.
Um, that's not a "point of contention." The people Caex is doing are the ones who have garnered the most suspicion, regardless of whether or not they are also the top posters (though, note the correlation. This is why scum like to lurk)
I wasn't saying "these are the people Caex has claimed are the most suspicious" and I'm not sure why you would think that would be a huge deal even if that's what I thought.
You really are new, right?
Okay. While I am not relishing the idea of you regaining your vote and coming back and voting for me, can you say - without disclosing anything that you feel needs to be kept secret - if regaining your vote is dependant on something other people have to do, or if it's something you will be able to do on your own?
I realize DV claimed midterms and essentially excused himself until Friday, but I haven't much cared for the very few posts he's randomly thrown into the thread. What do you mean you are "for" an ability color lock?
Look at this guy trying to get me on tilt. Seriously, look at that. After I just explained how it sometimes happens to Silver.
No way I believe that's a coincidence, folks.
Synonym for new.
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.