Look. I can see you're worried about being manipulated and influenced into making the wrong decision. I get it. That's healthy. Just...I see you making it a big part of your primary scoring rubric, bigger than it should be. Who is being the bossier, pushier person at any given point ITT. Like, when Iso was trying to push you into voting early. Me, for apparently explaining my own mindset in a way that struck you as telling you how to think. Somehow. Whatever. Bleh.
Basically feels like the game is being decided on an emotional level rather than an analytical level, which is hella frustrating for me. It's part of the game, but, feels like I'm about to lose to someone's feelings, and that feels like a crappy way to throw a game. Especially since it should be really evident that any person in an endgame position is explicitly supposed to be doing everything they can to convince you and help you get this right. That's our job. We've both been doing it. Because we're both supposed to. And your best shot isn't to worry about that, to get caught up in whose sales technique is more obnoxious, but to worry about the actual evidence.
So, because you're clearly reacting so well to it already, I'm going to tell you how to think. Cause, you know. Seems like the logical, winning strategy.
Way I see it, you have two choices.
You can trust the guy who spent the whole game being indignant about a billion tiny things, saying every single flicker of an eyelid coming from me is a damning scum tell, never admitting fault, and saying it so loudly, repeatedly, and so confidently that he almost convinces you. And that'd be pretty in line with most human psychology. Most people feel drawn to go with the person who's unreasonably confident in there position, even if they don't have a single whit of fact, logic, or reason behind it. Because deep down in their guts, they're not looking for reasons. They're looking for reassurance.
I can't really do that thing for you. I'm not good at telling you my case is some irrefutable masterpiece when all I've got to work with is less than 70 posts. Do I know I'm right? Absolutely. Can I prove it to you with a gigantic mountain of evidence? No, I can't. And that's where my confidence breakdown is. I've got a weak case, and I know it. Because all I've got is me, being a townie, and more of a townie than the other guy. Which is next to nothing, if you don't have the capacity to track those townie tells. And the sad thing is, I'm not even sure you're looking for them. But if I tell you what they are, it kind of defeats the purpose of them, right? So then how do I sell you on a case that I know without a doubt is correct, but that you don't have the ability to share with me, or maybe even to see?
Iso doesn't have those qualms. His case - complete BS. Utter lies, putrid exaggeration, just uttered repeatedly and confidently enough to sound convincing. Makes me want to vomit. That's not in my wheelhouse. I am constitutionally unable to present that kind of utter BS as truth. Which is why I suck as scum, but here, ironically, it's coming back to me haunt me as town. Because unlike most every other game I've played, I really can't be more confident in presenting my case than the other guy. Because I'm the only one for whom my case is persuasive. And I know that.
So instead, my case is me, and trying to keep faith that you can read me.
Just thinking this through out loud, showing my work. Laying out my thought process for you to look at in as much detail as I can, so you have the information you need. Yeah. I have you in mind throughout each and every one of my posts. Because that's who I'm supposed to be thinking about. You're the audience. You're the person I need to convince. And my job is to give you the tools you need to understand and assess me. Aside from attacking Iso whenever his masks slips, his rabies-drool oozes from his mouth and he overplays his hand, that's my primary job. To be me, and to help you understand why I think what I think, and just let my mentality shine through hope you can see it in time.
Maybe you don't want to have the responsibility of making this choice, and be the focal point who everyone is concentrating on. But the chips fell that way, and now it's on you. I can't make this choice for you. All I can do is try to give you the info you need to make it, and try to tell you if I see you looking at things a little weird or maybe straying from the core of the game. Feel like I did all I can. Hope it's enough.
Ehm Azrael I have a big issue with your last post. You’re spending a whole alinea talking about why you don’t trust Iso in this particular game, while for you as town, it’s completely clear-cut that he’s scum.
I think you’re trying to type what you think I should be thinking about Iso, instead of giving your own honest thoughts. Which doesn’t feel like something town would be doing at all.
Bruh. Two points. One, I don't make cases for myself. I make them for other people. If making cases for myself was what was necessary in this situation, I'd just repeatedly say, well, I'm not scum, and you're not scum Rhand, so I guess it's Iso. Which is totally and completely useless to you. Why the hell would I waste our time by typing that.
Both of us - not just me - are presenting the arguments we think are most effective to argue the case from an outside perspective - yours. Obviously you can't rely on my inside information that I'm not scum, it's pointless to mention. Likewise, Iso's most effective argument isn't "I'm not scum, and you can totes believe me on that!" He knows that's futile for him to try too, so instead he has spent a crap-ton of time trying (failing) to talk up things I'm supposedly doing to malign his character, not because he thinks I'm scum, but because he has to find some other way to sell you on it.
Two, the majority of that post, and most of my posts IIT, are explicitly me saying exactly what I'm thinking and why. Iso's been industriously misrepping my thoughts so much I haven't had much time for anything besides restating and re-explaining my own thought process, to the point that it got pretty annoying. So when you're sitting there saying I'm just talking about what you should think, instead of what I'm thinking, I'm literally just sitting here at my computer screen with my head resting on one hand making indignant squinty eyes at you from across the internet.
Have you done an ISO of each of us yet? BC I'm pretty sure if you read my actual posts instead of Iso's version thereof, his entire false narrative instantly collapses.
If it’s something I do as either alignment, how is it anything other than an “Iso tell”?
Yes! That was the entire point. I only said it 5-6 different times, and you pretended to miss them all through your haze of constant misrep...
It's only taken what, 4-5 back and forths for you to finally admit what I'm actually saying in plain English multiple times, instead of desperately grasping for whatever BS explanation you can concoct?
Also, if you actually read what I said, I explicitly explained why you would make that argument as scum.
The same argument you're making now? That it's NAI? We agree on that. Because it's true, you'd do it under either alignment. So why the hell are you complaining about me agreeing with that? Because you expected me to misrep and twist and overstate the case if I were townie, and I disappointed you?
This attack is completely ridiculous. You're attacking me for something you agree with me on - you're attacking me for what you yourself agree is the truth. Because, you know, attacking people for telling the truth is how you catch scum according to scum-Iso, apparently.
I can’t believe you’re chiding me for being “eager” to vote Az when you said you were going to do it, yourself, before I beat you to it.
Here’s the litmus test you should be using, Rhand - Az is backpedaling, right now. He’s claiming that our mini-debate was him saying that my behavior was NAI, not that he was trying to paint me as scum. It should be pretty obvious that that’s a lie; but what I want you to do is look back on our exchange. Read it one more time. Is Az arguing that my behavior doesn’t make me scum, but rather, simply that it makes it difficult to tell my alignment one way or the other? Or is he painting a narrative to manipulate you by making me seem like an unreliable source of information while framing himself as a reasonable chum with which to collaborate with? Likewise, am I reaching with my arguments against Az, and trying to make him look as bad as possible? Or am I genuinely scumreading him based on early posting, and then understandably going for the throat once your lack of hammer cleared you and damned Az?
Reread with those angles in mind and let us know what you decide once you confer with your teammates.
This is getting really, really, really old.
Iso, I am saying it is NAI, AND I am also saying you are scum. I am saying both, in different places. Not either/or. Both.
Not that hard to understand, if you're trying to actually understand and comprehend, which you aren't.
Neither have I ever been trying to trash you or your reputation as a townie. That would make zero sense for me to do. First and foremost, I don't need to trash your town game when you're not even town. And despite your idiosyncracies, you're one of the best players on the site and everyone knows it. When you're actually town, you're gifted, everybody knows you're phenomenal at finding scum, and everybody also already knows sometimes you're a little crazy. That's not trashing you, they're both pretty well-known facts about how you operate, and mentioning them in the context of something being NAI because it's how you play oftentimes isn't even anywhere close to trashing you as a person or a player. That is yet another in a long string of ridiculous misreps you're trying to make stick, because you don't have a good way to attack me aside from the stuff neither of us can talk about, and you know it.
When Iso doesn't have an actual case as scum, he yells, he screams, he acts indignant, and he fabricates evidence instead of finding it. That's what's going on here, and I don't think it's that hard to track. He's trying to argue that I'm trying to trash him and his opinion, say he's unreliable. I didn't do that, and I never would, because for years I've repeatedly shared that despite his flaws I think Iso is one of the best players we have. But here and now, I don't trust him one bit. Not because he's reckless, because that has nothing to do with whether or not he's right. I don't trust him because he keeps trying to lie to make his case, keeps doing that thing that scum do where they're so desperate to make a point stick, that they read completely innocent behavior as something else entirely, and twist people's points 180 degrees because they're not even bothering to try to actually understand them. Yeah, Iso is untrustworthy. Not because he's a bad townie, but because he's not even close to measuring up to even an average townie level of performance, much less coming anywhere close to playing like one of the finest town players I've ever played beside.
Anyways, that's my take on it. I know you'll do your best, no matter how it shakes out.
I have no idea why you think I would care about making that point even if I were scum. Just silly and wrong.
Did you miss the parts where I explicitly said you were silly enough to do this under either alignmentn so it wasn't a terribly bulletproof scum tell for you, or are you just so focused on your fake scum indignation that you forget to take into account the actual face value of my words in favor of reading insidious motives into them?
Huh? Is that exclamation mark inserted by mistake? Was that what you're asking about? Not sure I'm following you there.
So first A) Iso asked why I was talking about his stuff being NAI. And then B) you asked about why I would talk about what townie me should be doing.
My thought process in response to A) includes a frank assessment that in a game with less than 55 posts, we don't exactly have lengthy scum cases to throw at one another. Iso seemed to be wondering why I would even go into the notion that portions of his case could be considered NAI, he seemed to think that was weird, some kind of tell. So as part of my response to his question of why I would talk about his stuff being NAI, I countered with the notion that unlike Iso, I felt it was important to actually be candid, truthful, and not constantly exaggerate and misrepresent my opponent's argument for the sake of scoring points. So I'm mentioning what townie Az should be doing here because A) it points out the contrast in how we're behaving, how I'm laying out directly that concentrating on analyzing his gambit won't really help clear up his alignment for you as much as looking for town tells, whereas Iso just keeps massively over-exaggerating and over-hyping every aspect of his case, as if he weren't industriously misrepping half of it and the rest is just a bunch of bald, unsupported statements. And B) It helps explain my mindset, in response to why I went into that. When I'm townie, I intentionally seek to be as honest and stream of consciousness as possible. It's one of my tells, it's just what I do. I'm unfiltered, so I say unfiltered things, like thinking through ridiculous, unlikely, bizarre scenarios like you slow-rolling a lynch vote. I don't try to hide my weirdness, even if it's weird, bc I don't want to take the risk of not being my normal townie self by editing out my natural posting style. I can't really duplicate it intentionally, so throwing it out into the world in that unfiltered form seems wiser than filtering myself into sounding fake, even if odd Az-brain stuff pops out from time to time.
I'm not considering whether Iso is town in those posts, because he's not. I'm assessing his behavior from an objective standpoint to classify it into things that are legitimate scum tells for Iso, and things that are not, bc they're NAI. Basically, I'm saying that while I know exactly why Iso is doing what he's doing in this game, and I've laid that out there, I also understand that because the townie explanation for his behavior is also completely within his wheelhouse, it's not really the world's strongest scum case. And I don't want to pretend my case against him is stronger than it is and exaggerate the evidence, because that'd be dishonest, and the most important thing I can do as a townie is be as straight up as possible right now, because that's what gets me read correctly.
Not saying that I think Iso is town, because he's clearly not. But because the scum case against him is not really all that distinguishable from his town meta, I'm arguing your best shot on making a good judgment call here is to decide it based on town tells, not scum tells. Iso's case on me is crap, and my Iso case is perfectly plausible but indistinguishable from his town meta. So I think that leaves you in a tough spot, where you have to look at more at town tells than scum cases to get this right.
I think since I wrote that originally though, Iso's bloodthirstiness and willingness to mischaracterize my arguments and just blatantly make up world views that he states as fact has become pretty evident. Pretty prototypical scum behavior. Usually, town-Iso bases his arguments on facts, interactions, genuine inconsistencies, not just repeatedly misquoting someone and saying it says something different than it actually does. And I hate that he kept trying to rush into a decision on this, after you initially stated you were leaning towards voting me. I think he tipped his hand there, with being over-eager to seal this one while he felt he had his best chance to steal a win.
See, this is funny, because it's putting down the very tactic that outed you as scum.
Full stop right there. I'm not scum, I'm not outed, AND YOU KNOW THAT. Trying to pretend that your little stunt was anything more than window dressing for Rhand is BS. It proves nothing to Rhand except that you think he's an easier mark than me.
How does your gambit prove your alignment to Rhand, Iso? I'll sit down with a good book while you try to BS your way through that one. Sheesh. Talk about overplaying your gambit.
Quote from Iso »
The problem with this post is that you're trying to make me look bad on a premise that is faulty that still worked. To which information sources are you referring that we've cut off? Your ability to make Rhand look bad? Boohoo. Suck it up - this is an uphill battle for you, and you know it. It's like you're saying, "Well, I know that you can cut vegetables with a knife, but I prefer a mandoline because it's more uniform, pretty, and precise, even though you got exactly the same results more efficiently by using your knife. And you should feel bad for that."
You're attacking my methodology without disputing the findings. In short, this is fluff and completely irrelevant to the overall state of the game other than to mischaracterize me.
Because your "gambit" which provided zero actionable info to anyone "proves"...what again?
Well, it "proves" is that you're a gambler under either alignment, which we all knew before we came in.
It also proves you wanted to show Rhand how much you "trusted" him. Because you're hoping that your "trust", of someone whose alignment you already knew, will go both ways. Nevermind that there was no leap of faith involved whatsoever, because you're just scum.
Doesn't prove a thing other than that. You knew my and his alignment before you ever cast that vote, so I'm hardly going to applaud your courage here.
Quote from Iso »
When you do get around to pushing back, we have this:
Character assassination. Attempting to make me look bad, like a villain, etc.; all of this can be summarized as "yo Iso take some ad hom!" Again, it's not actually addressing the argument, but rather, attempting to make me look like an unreliable source of information in addition to questioning my methodology. More fluff.
*head scratch*
Character assassination is describing how your play makes sense as scum, apparently. I'm a straight cutthroat for that, apparently. And for calling you reckless, which is hardly a news bulletin. Come on man.
Lemme quote again what you're calling character assassination:
Anyways, Iso being reckless is nothing new under either alignment. So I'm not going to tell you that this isn't something I could have foreseen us all facepalming @ a townie Iso in the post-game for doing the same thing into an instant loss. That's totally in his wheelhouse. But it is absolutely a smarter play as scum, and there's great lines of play in support of doing what he's doing from an emotional manipulation standpoint. You commit to one particular target to undermine, you create an emotional bond because they now *know* that you're a good townie too (which they did before they voted, but hey, details are for suckers when you can put on a good show), and you always look better as the aggressor rather than the defender. It makes great work out of all those psychological edges. So, kudos to him for that, whether or not he methodically thought through all those aspects beforehand or not (he didn't, but he's got good instincts and that's just as good sometimes).
What you actually have here in this paragraph and the remainder of the post is a balanced assessment of your abilities. When you're townie, you're obviously gifted. That's counter-balanced by being brash, and ridiculously confident, which sometimes leads to loose play such as outing fellow townie power roles just to prove that you can/that you were right about them, regardless of whether it helps your team win. That's my plain and simple opinion of your pros and cons as a player. Are you really honestly disagreeing with my assessment of you, or do you just not like how it sounds when it explains exactly how your line of play makes sense?
And I'm not even trying to say it only makes sense under only a scum alignment. I'm saying you'd do this jazz under either one, and that still gets charted up as some kind of underhanded tactic? Wut?
Quote from Iso »
"Well, there's not a lot going on here except Iso's cheap shot lololo but you can totally figure this game out, Rhand!" This is a really neat psychological tactic - it villainizes me as misrepping, unreasonable, overconfident, and possibly scum as a result, but puts alleged confidence in Rhand, appealing to his pride and sense of reason in the sense that you're trying to get Rhand to work with you.
I'm pretty sure it's impossible to "misrep" you as overconfident, Iso. Let's be real here.
And yes, you're absolutely right that I'm appealing to Rhand's sense of reason. That is exactly what I'm doing, I'm not trying to hide it.
What I'd love to hear is how you'd describe what YOU are appealing to out of Rhand. Because you've effectively made this a contest to see who can persuade Rhand to vote for the other guy. Don't try to pretend you're not doing everything you can think of to sway him your way. Or continue doing so, I guess. It makes my job easier to point out how silly you're being by pretending you are some kind of objective, dispassionate champion of logic here.
Also, your new nickname is now Discount Spock.
Now THAT'S how you do ad hom/character assassination. *Takes a bow*
Quote from Iso »
Finally, Az tries to make himself seem like a reasonable party:
I don't have to seem, I'm legit reasonable. I get awards for reasonableness from the reasonableness board, I'm so reasonable. I got a card, and a trophy case. I'm the legit Leonard Nimoy, not some mirror universe knock-off. Bow to my pointy, green-blooded ears, son.
Quote from Iso »
After previously humbling yourself - "oh gee, I sure hope you can figure out this game, Rhand!" - you then boost yourself up to slightly below the level you put him on, making yourself attempt to seem like someone who has a small amount of confidence but not enough to try to dwarf the inflamed sense of ego you attempted to bestow upon Rhand, which, let's be honest, is a total misrepresentation of the way you feel about the way you play Mafia.
Um, I'm not sure how any of what I said is supposed to impart some kind of over-inflated sense of ego to Rhand. I have my opinions about Rhand. Apparently, it would be some kind of faux pas to share them. Which I didn't, so, uh, good jorb making up points I guess.
Maybe I said something to boost Rhand's ego over in the mirror universe, and you just got those two mixed up.
Quote from Iso »
All in all, this is a really dirty scum essay because of the way you've written it to appeal to Rhand and, while I applaud you on your efforts, it's very transparent.
Blah blah blah, tunnel everything to say it's a scum tell, blah blah blah, make up stuff that didn't actually happen, complain about it, profit. Same old scum tactics. Learn a new trick, bro.
Ah, here we go - there's that pride. Thank you for highlighting the dissonance in your mindset for me.
By calling myself careful and methodical? I already said we both have our methods that each work for us. If I had to choose between our skillsets, Iso, I'd choose yours. My skills take time, effort, work. Yours are like magic. Instanteous. Effortless. Rapid. They both have their times and places. I'm not really trying to say one is better than the other.
Courthouse is a pretty good example of this. Me, I can come up with a legal argument, put it on paper, and have it be pretty rock solid. I can prepare for hearings for hours. But put me up against a good trial attorney who can think on their feet, and I'm gonna lose at oral argument every damn time when they whip something out of their butt, and all that effort gets lit on fire like a roll of burning toilet paper. On the other hand, yeah, sometimes the brash trial attorney glosses over some critical detail that I caught, and I have their head on a platter.
Plusses and minuses, bro. Tradeoffs. It's not all just as simple as calling it winners and losers. Life's not that simple, and I'm not trying to make it more simple than it is. I'm describing life as I see it, plainly and truthfully. Because that's how I prefer to roll. Can't say the same for you, in this moment. You keep trying to twist my statements into some kind of binary model, white and black, light and shadow. But you're a complicated dude, iso. Sometimes you're white, sometimes you're black, sometimes you're silly, sometimes, you're brilliant. You're all those things at once, and I'm describing you as such, because that is the plain truth about life, and about you. You're a bunch of stuff, not just a single piece.
So why do you keep trying to mangle everything I say into this single mold you've picked, Iso? What's leading you to do that? Riddle me that.
Your entire post reads of damage control. I'm skeptical about your claim that you don't know what kpaca's doing after he blatantly said he cleared it with you, first. With regards to the crappy answers,
With regards to the gambit thing, I find it disingenuous that you would suggest that it's catastrophic for the town after okaying kpaca to do it. I have more to say on this but I don't think I'm allowed to per the game influence rule, so I've opted to simply pass it on to my teammates via QT.
Dude. You already know I can't respond to this. Quit trying to tempt me into disproving your case. Not cool, man.
My opinion is my opinion. I didn't change it at any point. If you think that's inconsistent with something else you saw, fine. But I can't clear that up for Rhand, so that's a pretty low blow, man.
Quote from Iso »
Your slow vote is painfully fake and obviously scum. Like...the only reason scumRhand would have not to hammer you immediately is to troll us, and at that point, we've already lost. The only possible angle you could have here is to try to hope I'll switch my vote to Rhand or to somehow seem skeptical and townie, neither of which really occurred.
In short, get lynched.
Rhand, would you like to do the honors?
Pushing that mislynch a little strong and quick, aren't we?
The only explanation? Hardly. Unlike you, Iso, I am as methodical as a glacier. We both have playstyles that work well for us, but mine is based on thinking through every scenario I can imagine, slowly, carefully, and from as many angles as I can contrive to imagine. So no, casting a deciding vote this early in the day under ANY circumstances seriously rubs against my grain, and I am CERTAINLY going to think it through before doing something that could cause my team to lose the game. And I am going to advise any player who shares my alignment to exercise the same care and patience that I apply in my own work.
Ok, first concern after going through the other threads and reading the rules is that I'm pretty sure what we're talking about is directly against Eco's rules. He did not say we're allowed to talk about all public information, he said all public, MOD CONFIRMED information. So yes, I'd be happy to explain the conversation I had with Kpaca, but I have direct knowledge of his alignment. And then the players in Kpaca's game would have details about what/why we talked about, from which much info could be gained. So you've kind of put me in an impossible position there, Iso, where I can't explain what happened without blowing up two games at once. Not sure how to deal with that, since both you and Rhand are prepared to end the game over a case I literally am not allowed to discuss. So that sucks, because it's really not hard to explain aside from the rule.
Also, if your case is based upon the play of my teammates in other games more generally...that's also not something any of us can talk about legitimately.
What I can talk about is that early voting does not give a town player the ability to make a more intelligent decision. It forecloses it.
A townie who votes early has effectively ended their information phase in a meaningful sense. If they were right, yes, they know they were right, but if they were wrong, they lost the game. It's information in the same sense that lynching someone is "information". But the point of information is to use it to inform yourself and make intelligent decisions BEFORE pushing all your chips in on the table. Not afterwards. The information gained does not assist the voter in making the correct vote.
I suppose it *might* provide information to the third-party not involved in the situation IF the game does not end immediately in town loss, because the way that players read and respond to that gambit DOES create information and provoke behavioral reactions. But for a town player, it's one hell of a gamble that causes you to sacrifice any other source of information prior to committing to a read, and frankly, I don't think it's at all a smart thing to do from a town perspective. Ugh, this is a crappy situation, that I can't go into more detail.
Anyways, Iso being reckless is nothing new under either alignment. So I'm not going to tell you that this isn't something I could have foreseen us all facepalming @ a townie Iso in the post-game for doing the same thing into an instant loss. That's totally in his wheelhouse. But it is absolutely a smarter play as scum, and there's great lines of play in support of doing what he's doing from an emotional manipulation standpoint. You commit to one particular target to undermine, you create an emotional bond because they now *know* that you're a good townie too (which they did before they voted, but hey, details are for suckers when you can put on a good show), and you always look better as the aggressor rather than the defender. It makes great work out of all those psychological edges. So, kudos to him for that, whether or not he methodically thought through all those aspects beforehand or not (he didn't, but he's got good instincts and that's just as good sometimes).
As far as things we're legitimately allowed to talk about, obviously there's not a ton of info for you to look at this early. A few posts from each of us. There's not much there except some cheap misrep from Iso, and this gambit that you could see from either alignment. So I guess I'm kind of banking that you talk this out enough to read me and pick up on my town tells, because otherwise we might be kind of screwed on outs if Iso just does his standard unreasonable, poorly explained confidence bit that he does under either alignment. And that makes him a tough guy to get a legit read on, because that's not a hard pattern of behavior for him to reproduce under either alignment.
Me, though, I have one strong advantage here. I'm not a tough townie read. I'm someone who people usually can look at, talk to enough, and they can get a good solid read on where I'm coming from on a behavioral standpoint. Either as scum or town, I'm far more of an open book than Iso. Maybe to expand on that, I think my two playstyles are far more markedly different, so anyone who's familiar with my meta has a pretty ok shot of picking up a good read, whereas Iso's style falls into similar patterns under either alignment. I think the question is going to be less who has the more convincing scum case, and more who is the most evident townie. Or at least, I think that's your best shot of getting this right, for whatever that's worth to you.
So, if you have questions for me that the mod will allow me to answer, fire away. I'm here, and I'll just talk until you feel you got enough of a read to sort this out.
First off, I haven't read a word of the other threads bc my life is wonderful insanity atm, second off, I was not "expecting" to receive crappy answers and have no idea where you got that from, and third, your gambit is still pointless to "clear" someone for you, if you were townie, which apparently, you are not. It's not clearing, it's just deciding the game one way or another, if you're town. If you're scum, which you are, it's picking who you want to convince to manipulate into voting the other person early, and going all in on that.
Still working, so fuller explanation will have to come later. But Rhand, think through the logic of what his vote "proves" to you, versus how it doesn't prove anything to him, but does risk the game. IDK what the hell Kpaca is up to or doing in his game, haven't read the QT since a day or two ago either, but if Iso saw something and thought it was a good gambit, you know it's probably catastrophic for the town, no matter what Iso's alignment is supposed to be.
Anyways, since Rhand is clearly not the scum or is epicly slow-rolling us, vote... Huh. I wonder if there's any strategic benefit for Rhand to not close out the game early based on the game structure...? Hrmm. I think not, given how the rules work? I mean, at least not something very direct. Ehhh. Ok. Vote: Iso. Logic dictates this decision is sound and correct but still seems so incredibly loose to vote this early in a three-man lylo.
I hope there is no guide to scumread me lol. I try to keep my meta the same as both alignments.
The only thing I really struggle with as scum is taking control of the gamestate, which I try to do naturally as town.
Why ask one of us the town guide and the other the scum guide? Why not both the same?
Because I can generally recognize most town metas, but my last three games have wagoned Iso halfway to death before I flip my read and get a good, solid town-read on him. Been significantly better at POE than directly reading difficult slots. So if you had any actually legitimate info on your scum game for me, that would have been pretty helpful as far as reading your slot. Because probably the best way for me to win the game is to read you, rather than Iso. I know it's not me, so all I have to do is town-clear one more person. But for the best possible town-read, I need to know what does or does not match with the town-clear.
In other words, I didn't really expect Iso to have a solid answer for me. But I hoped that you would, because I imagine with my past history with Iso your slot would be significantly easier for me to read correctly and easily, than his will be, and from that I could infer alignments for each of you. Savvy?
I don’t know how to townread me, because I’ve seen so few people do it correctly in the past. I thought about starting toDay with a vote to clear someone else, but didn’t want to risk not being around to remove it in the event that I saw someone checking the thread to try to entrap scum.
We can’t RVS, and there’s really not a lot that I rely on to catch scum that I can utilize, here.
I currently think Az is scummier than Rhand, FWIW.
Who says we can't RVS? *arches eyebrow* The whole game can be RVS, if we want it to be. Or just straight analysis. There are no rules. Except for the rules, of course.
Don't see how your vote gambit actually clears someone, rather than just ends the game or is pointless? I mean, if there's someone else here, and you picked wrong, the game is over. If there's no one else here but you and the person you voted, no one is cleared...
And surely your game isn't THAT dependent on probable team interactions, is it? You've had plenty of games where you can rando-zap someone from the RVS stage based on OPs alone. Why downplay your abilities here?
*insert obligatory scummier because I'm the scum claim, here*
Basically feels like the game is being decided on an emotional level rather than an analytical level, which is hella frustrating for me. It's part of the game, but, feels like I'm about to lose to someone's feelings, and that feels like a crappy way to throw a game. Especially since it should be really evident that any person in an endgame position is explicitly supposed to be doing everything they can to convince you and help you get this right. That's our job. We've both been doing it. Because we're both supposed to. And your best shot isn't to worry about that, to get caught up in whose sales technique is more obnoxious, but to worry about the actual evidence.
So, because you're clearly reacting so well to it already, I'm going to tell you how to think. Cause, you know. Seems like the logical, winning strategy.
Way I see it, you have two choices.
You can trust the guy who spent the whole game being indignant about a billion tiny things, saying every single flicker of an eyelid coming from me is a damning scum tell, never admitting fault, and saying it so loudly, repeatedly, and so confidently that he almost convinces you. And that'd be pretty in line with most human psychology. Most people feel drawn to go with the person who's unreasonably confident in there position, even if they don't have a single whit of fact, logic, or reason behind it. Because deep down in their guts, they're not looking for reasons. They're looking for reassurance.
I can't really do that thing for you. I'm not good at telling you my case is some irrefutable masterpiece when all I've got to work with is less than 70 posts. Do I know I'm right? Absolutely. Can I prove it to you with a gigantic mountain of evidence? No, I can't. And that's where my confidence breakdown is. I've got a weak case, and I know it. Because all I've got is me, being a townie, and more of a townie than the other guy. Which is next to nothing, if you don't have the capacity to track those townie tells. And the sad thing is, I'm not even sure you're looking for them. But if I tell you what they are, it kind of defeats the purpose of them, right? So then how do I sell you on a case that I know without a doubt is correct, but that you don't have the ability to share with me, or maybe even to see?
Iso doesn't have those qualms. His case - complete BS. Utter lies, putrid exaggeration, just uttered repeatedly and confidently enough to sound convincing. Makes me want to vomit. That's not in my wheelhouse. I am constitutionally unable to present that kind of utter BS as truth. Which is why I suck as scum, but here, ironically, it's coming back to me haunt me as town. Because unlike most every other game I've played, I really can't be more confident in presenting my case than the other guy. Because I'm the only one for whom my case is persuasive. And I know that.
So instead, my case is me, and trying to keep faith that you can read me.
Just thinking this through out loud, showing my work. Laying out my thought process for you to look at in as much detail as I can, so you have the information you need. Yeah. I have you in mind throughout each and every one of my posts. Because that's who I'm supposed to be thinking about. You're the audience. You're the person I need to convince. And my job is to give you the tools you need to understand and assess me. Aside from attacking Iso whenever his masks slips, his rabies-drool oozes from his mouth and he overplays his hand, that's my primary job. To be me, and to help you understand why I think what I think, and just let my mentality shine through hope you can see it in time.
Maybe you don't want to have the responsibility of making this choice, and be the focal point who everyone is concentrating on. But the chips fell that way, and now it's on you. I can't make this choice for you. All I can do is try to give you the info you need to make it, and try to tell you if I see you looking at things a little weird or maybe straying from the core of the game. Feel like I did all I can. Hope it's enough.
Bruh. Two points. One, I don't make cases for myself. I make them for other people. If making cases for myself was what was necessary in this situation, I'd just repeatedly say, well, I'm not scum, and you're not scum Rhand, so I guess it's Iso. Which is totally and completely useless to you. Why the hell would I waste our time by typing that.
Both of us - not just me - are presenting the arguments we think are most effective to argue the case from an outside perspective - yours. Obviously you can't rely on my inside information that I'm not scum, it's pointless to mention. Likewise, Iso's most effective argument isn't "I'm not scum, and you can totes believe me on that!" He knows that's futile for him to try too, so instead he has spent a crap-ton of time trying (failing) to talk up things I'm supposedly doing to malign his character, not because he thinks I'm scum, but because he has to find some other way to sell you on it.
Two, the majority of that post, and most of my posts IIT, are explicitly me saying exactly what I'm thinking and why. Iso's been industriously misrepping my thoughts so much I haven't had much time for anything besides restating and re-explaining my own thought process, to the point that it got pretty annoying. So when you're sitting there saying I'm just talking about what you should think, instead of what I'm thinking, I'm literally just sitting here at my computer screen with my head resting on one hand making indignant squinty eyes at you from across the internet.
Have you done an ISO of each of us yet? BC I'm pretty sure if you read my actual posts instead of Iso's version thereof, his entire false narrative instantly collapses.
Yes! That was the entire point. I only said it 5-6 different times, and you pretended to miss them all through your haze of constant misrep...
It's only taken what, 4-5 back and forths for you to finally admit what I'm actually saying in plain English multiple times, instead of desperately grasping for whatever BS explanation you can concoct?
The same argument you're making now? That it's NAI? We agree on that. Because it's true, you'd do it under either alignment. So why the hell are you complaining about me agreeing with that? Because you expected me to misrep and twist and overstate the case if I were townie, and I disappointed you?
This attack is completely ridiculous. You're attacking me for something you agree with me on - you're attacking me for what you yourself agree is the truth. Because, you know, attacking people for telling the truth is how you catch scum according to scum-Iso, apparently.
This is getting really, really, really old.
Iso, I am saying it is NAI, AND I am also saying you are scum. I am saying both, in different places. Not either/or. Both.
Not that hard to understand, if you're trying to actually understand and comprehend, which you aren't.
Neither have I ever been trying to trash you or your reputation as a townie. That would make zero sense for me to do. First and foremost, I don't need to trash your town game when you're not even town. And despite your idiosyncracies, you're one of the best players on the site and everyone knows it. When you're actually town, you're gifted, everybody knows you're phenomenal at finding scum, and everybody also already knows sometimes you're a little crazy. That's not trashing you, they're both pretty well-known facts about how you operate, and mentioning them in the context of something being NAI because it's how you play oftentimes isn't even anywhere close to trashing you as a person or a player. That is yet another in a long string of ridiculous misreps you're trying to make stick, because you don't have a good way to attack me aside from the stuff neither of us can talk about, and you know it.
When Iso doesn't have an actual case as scum, he yells, he screams, he acts indignant, and he fabricates evidence instead of finding it. That's what's going on here, and I don't think it's that hard to track. He's trying to argue that I'm trying to trash him and his opinion, say he's unreliable. I didn't do that, and I never would, because for years I've repeatedly shared that despite his flaws I think Iso is one of the best players we have. But here and now, I don't trust him one bit. Not because he's reckless, because that has nothing to do with whether or not he's right. I don't trust him because he keeps trying to lie to make his case, keeps doing that thing that scum do where they're so desperate to make a point stick, that they read completely innocent behavior as something else entirely, and twist people's points 180 degrees because they're not even bothering to try to actually understand them. Yeah, Iso is untrustworthy. Not because he's a bad townie, but because he's not even close to measuring up to even an average townie level of performance, much less coming anywhere close to playing like one of the finest town players I've ever played beside.
Anyways, that's my take on it. I know you'll do your best, no matter how it shakes out.
Did you miss the parts where I explicitly said you were silly enough to do this under either alignmentn so it wasn't a terribly bulletproof scum tell for you, or are you just so focused on your fake scum indignation that you forget to take into account the actual face value of my words in favor of reading insidious motives into them?
So first A) Iso asked why I was talking about his stuff being NAI. And then B) you asked about why I would talk about what townie me should be doing.
My thought process in response to A) includes a frank assessment that in a game with less than 55 posts, we don't exactly have lengthy scum cases to throw at one another. Iso seemed to be wondering why I would even go into the notion that portions of his case could be considered NAI, he seemed to think that was weird, some kind of tell. So as part of my response to his question of why I would talk about his stuff being NAI, I countered with the notion that unlike Iso, I felt it was important to actually be candid, truthful, and not constantly exaggerate and misrepresent my opponent's argument for the sake of scoring points. So I'm mentioning what townie Az should be doing here because A) it points out the contrast in how we're behaving, how I'm laying out directly that concentrating on analyzing his gambit won't really help clear up his alignment for you as much as looking for town tells, whereas Iso just keeps massively over-exaggerating and over-hyping every aspect of his case, as if he weren't industriously misrepping half of it and the rest is just a bunch of bald, unsupported statements. And B) It helps explain my mindset, in response to why I went into that. When I'm townie, I intentionally seek to be as honest and stream of consciousness as possible. It's one of my tells, it's just what I do. I'm unfiltered, so I say unfiltered things, like thinking through ridiculous, unlikely, bizarre scenarios like you slow-rolling a lynch vote. I don't try to hide my weirdness, even if it's weird, bc I don't want to take the risk of not being my normal townie self by editing out my natural posting style. I can't really duplicate it intentionally, so throwing it out into the world in that unfiltered form seems wiser than filtering myself into sounding fake, even if odd Az-brain stuff pops out from time to time.
I'm not considering whether Iso is town in those posts, because he's not. I'm assessing his behavior from an objective standpoint to classify it into things that are legitimate scum tells for Iso, and things that are not, bc they're NAI. Basically, I'm saying that while I know exactly why Iso is doing what he's doing in this game, and I've laid that out there, I also understand that because the townie explanation for his behavior is also completely within his wheelhouse, it's not really the world's strongest scum case. And I don't want to pretend my case against him is stronger than it is and exaggerate the evidence, because that'd be dishonest, and the most important thing I can do as a townie is be as straight up as possible right now, because that's what gets me read correctly.
Not saying that I think Iso is town, because he's clearly not. But because the scum case against him is not really all that distinguishable from his town meta, I'm arguing your best shot on making a good judgment call here is to decide it based on town tells, not scum tells. Iso's case on me is crap, and my Iso case is perfectly plausible but indistinguishable from his town meta. So I think that leaves you in a tough spot, where you have to look at more at town tells than scum cases to get this right.
I think since I wrote that originally though, Iso's bloodthirstiness and willingness to mischaracterize my arguments and just blatantly make up world views that he states as fact has become pretty evident. Pretty prototypical scum behavior. Usually, town-Iso bases his arguments on facts, interactions, genuine inconsistencies, not just repeatedly misquoting someone and saying it says something different than it actually does. And I hate that he kept trying to rush into a decision on this, after you initially stated you were leaning towards voting me. I think he tipped his hand there, with being over-eager to seal this one while he felt he had his best chance to steal a win.
Full stop right there. I'm not scum, I'm not outed, AND YOU KNOW THAT. Trying to pretend that your little stunt was anything more than window dressing for Rhand is BS. It proves nothing to Rhand except that you think he's an easier mark than me.
How does your gambit prove your alignment to Rhand, Iso? I'll sit down with a good book while you try to BS your way through that one. Sheesh. Talk about overplaying your gambit.
Because your "gambit" which provided zero actionable info to anyone "proves"...what again?
Well, it "proves" is that you're a gambler under either alignment, which we all knew before we came in.
It also proves you wanted to show Rhand how much you "trusted" him. Because you're hoping that your "trust", of someone whose alignment you already knew, will go both ways. Nevermind that there was no leap of faith involved whatsoever, because you're just scum.
Doesn't prove a thing other than that. You knew my and his alignment before you ever cast that vote, so I'm hardly going to applaud your courage here.
*head scratch*
Character assassination is describing how your play makes sense as scum, apparently. I'm a straight cutthroat for that, apparently. And for calling you reckless, which is hardly a news bulletin. Come on man.
Lemme quote again what you're calling character assassination:
What you actually have here in this paragraph and the remainder of the post is a balanced assessment of your abilities. When you're townie, you're obviously gifted. That's counter-balanced by being brash, and ridiculously confident, which sometimes leads to loose play such as outing fellow townie power roles just to prove that you can/that you were right about them, regardless of whether it helps your team win. That's my plain and simple opinion of your pros and cons as a player. Are you really honestly disagreeing with my assessment of you, or do you just not like how it sounds when it explains exactly how your line of play makes sense?
And I'm not even trying to say it only makes sense under only a scum alignment. I'm saying you'd do this jazz under either one, and that still gets charted up as some kind of underhanded tactic? Wut?
I'm pretty sure it's impossible to "misrep" you as overconfident, Iso. Let's be real here.
And yes, you're absolutely right that I'm appealing to Rhand's sense of reason. That is exactly what I'm doing, I'm not trying to hide it.
What I'd love to hear is how you'd describe what YOU are appealing to out of Rhand. Because you've effectively made this a contest to see who can persuade Rhand to vote for the other guy. Don't try to pretend you're not doing everything you can think of to sway him your way. Or continue doing so, I guess. It makes my job easier to point out how silly you're being by pretending you are some kind of objective, dispassionate champion of logic here.
Also, your new nickname is now Discount Spock.
Now THAT'S how you do ad hom/character assassination. *Takes a bow*
I don't have to seem, I'm legit reasonable. I get awards for reasonableness from the reasonableness board, I'm so reasonable. I got a card, and a trophy case. I'm the legit Leonard Nimoy, not some mirror universe knock-off. Bow to my pointy, green-blooded ears, son.
Um, I'm not sure how any of what I said is supposed to impart some kind of over-inflated sense of ego to Rhand. I have my opinions about Rhand. Apparently, it would be some kind of faux pas to share them. Which I didn't, so, uh, good jorb making up points I guess.
Maybe I said something to boost Rhand's ego over in the mirror universe, and you just got those two mixed up.
Blah blah blah, tunnel everything to say it's a scum tell, blah blah blah, make up stuff that didn't actually happen, complain about it, profit. Same old scum tactics. Learn a new trick, bro.
By calling myself careful and methodical? I already said we both have our methods that each work for us. If I had to choose between our skillsets, Iso, I'd choose yours. My skills take time, effort, work. Yours are like magic. Instanteous. Effortless. Rapid. They both have their times and places. I'm not really trying to say one is better than the other.
Courthouse is a pretty good example of this. Me, I can come up with a legal argument, put it on paper, and have it be pretty rock solid. I can prepare for hearings for hours. But put me up against a good trial attorney who can think on their feet, and I'm gonna lose at oral argument every damn time when they whip something out of their butt, and all that effort gets lit on fire like a roll of burning toilet paper. On the other hand, yeah, sometimes the brash trial attorney glosses over some critical detail that I caught, and I have their head on a platter.
Plusses and minuses, bro. Tradeoffs. It's not all just as simple as calling it winners and losers. Life's not that simple, and I'm not trying to make it more simple than it is. I'm describing life as I see it, plainly and truthfully. Because that's how I prefer to roll. Can't say the same for you, in this moment. You keep trying to twist my statements into some kind of binary model, white and black, light and shadow. But you're a complicated dude, iso. Sometimes you're white, sometimes you're black, sometimes you're silly, sometimes, you're brilliant. You're all those things at once, and I'm describing you as such, because that is the plain truth about life, and about you. You're a bunch of stuff, not just a single piece.
So why do you keep trying to mangle everything I say into this single mold you've picked, Iso? What's leading you to do that? Riddle me that.
Got plenty of blood to spare. Have at it.
Dude. You already know I can't respond to this. Quit trying to tempt me into disproving your case. Not cool, man.
My opinion is my opinion. I didn't change it at any point. If you think that's inconsistent with something else you saw, fine. But I can't clear that up for Rhand, so that's a pretty low blow, man.
Pushing that mislynch a little strong and quick, aren't we?
The only explanation? Hardly. Unlike you, Iso, I am as methodical as a glacier. We both have playstyles that work well for us, but mine is based on thinking through every scenario I can imagine, slowly, carefully, and from as many angles as I can contrive to imagine. So no, casting a deciding vote this early in the day under ANY circumstances seriously rubs against my grain, and I am CERTAINLY going to think it through before doing something that could cause my team to lose the game. And I am going to advise any player who shares my alignment to exercise the same care and patience that I apply in my own work.
Also, if your case is based upon the play of my teammates in other games more generally...that's also not something any of us can talk about legitimately.
What I can talk about is that early voting does not give a town player the ability to make a more intelligent decision. It forecloses it.
A townie who votes early has effectively ended their information phase in a meaningful sense. If they were right, yes, they know they were right, but if they were wrong, they lost the game. It's information in the same sense that lynching someone is "information". But the point of information is to use it to inform yourself and make intelligent decisions BEFORE pushing all your chips in on the table. Not afterwards. The information gained does not assist the voter in making the correct vote.
I suppose it *might* provide information to the third-party not involved in the situation IF the game does not end immediately in town loss, because the way that players read and respond to that gambit DOES create information and provoke behavioral reactions. But for a town player, it's one hell of a gamble that causes you to sacrifice any other source of information prior to committing to a read, and frankly, I don't think it's at all a smart thing to do from a town perspective. Ugh, this is a crappy situation, that I can't go into more detail.
Anyways, Iso being reckless is nothing new under either alignment. So I'm not going to tell you that this isn't something I could have foreseen us all facepalming @ a townie Iso in the post-game for doing the same thing into an instant loss. That's totally in his wheelhouse. But it is absolutely a smarter play as scum, and there's great lines of play in support of doing what he's doing from an emotional manipulation standpoint. You commit to one particular target to undermine, you create an emotional bond because they now *know* that you're a good townie too (which they did before they voted, but hey, details are for suckers when you can put on a good show), and you always look better as the aggressor rather than the defender. It makes great work out of all those psychological edges. So, kudos to him for that, whether or not he methodically thought through all those aspects beforehand or not (he didn't, but he's got good instincts and that's just as good sometimes).
As far as things we're legitimately allowed to talk about, obviously there's not a ton of info for you to look at this early. A few posts from each of us. There's not much there except some cheap misrep from Iso, and this gambit that you could see from either alignment. So I guess I'm kind of banking that you talk this out enough to read me and pick up on my town tells, because otherwise we might be kind of screwed on outs if Iso just does his standard unreasonable, poorly explained confidence bit that he does under either alignment. And that makes him a tough guy to get a legit read on, because that's not a hard pattern of behavior for him to reproduce under either alignment.
Me, though, I have one strong advantage here. I'm not a tough townie read. I'm someone who people usually can look at, talk to enough, and they can get a good solid read on where I'm coming from on a behavioral standpoint. Either as scum or town, I'm far more of an open book than Iso. Maybe to expand on that, I think my two playstyles are far more markedly different, so anyone who's familiar with my meta has a pretty ok shot of picking up a good read, whereas Iso's style falls into similar patterns under either alignment. I think the question is going to be less who has the more convincing scum case, and more who is the most evident townie. Or at least, I think that's your best shot of getting this right, for whatever that's worth to you.
So, if you have questions for me that the mod will allow me to answer, fire away. I'm here, and I'll just talk until you feel you got enough of a read to sort this out.
Still working, so fuller explanation will have to come later. But Rhand, think through the logic of what his vote "proves" to you, versus how it doesn't prove anything to him, but does risk the game. IDK what the hell Kpaca is up to or doing in his game, haven't read the QT since a day or two ago either, but if Iso saw something and thought it was a good gambit, you know it's probably catastrophic for the town, no matter what Iso's alignment is supposed to be.
Anyways, since Rhand is clearly not the scum or is epicly slow-rolling us, vote... Huh. I wonder if there's any strategic benefit for Rhand to not close out the game early based on the game structure...? Hrmm. I think not, given how the rules work? I mean, at least not something very direct. Ehhh. Ok. Vote: Iso. Logic dictates this decision is sound and correct but still seems so incredibly loose to vote this early in a three-man lylo.
Because I can generally recognize most town metas, but my last three games have wagoned Iso halfway to death before I flip my read and get a good, solid town-read on him. Been significantly better at POE than directly reading difficult slots. So if you had any actually legitimate info on your scum game for me, that would have been pretty helpful as far as reading your slot. Because probably the best way for me to win the game is to read you, rather than Iso. I know it's not me, so all I have to do is town-clear one more person. But for the best possible town-read, I need to know what does or does not match with the town-clear.
In other words, I didn't really expect Iso to have a solid answer for me. But I hoped that you would, because I imagine with my past history with Iso your slot would be significantly easier for me to read correctly and easily, than his will be, and from that I could infer alignments for each of you. Savvy?
Who says we can't RVS? *arches eyebrow* The whole game can be RVS, if we want it to be. Or just straight analysis. There are no rules. Except for the rules, of course.
Don't see how your vote gambit actually clears someone, rather than just ends the game or is pointless? I mean, if there's someone else here, and you picked wrong, the game is over. If there's no one else here but you and the person you voted, no one is cleared...
And surely your game isn't THAT dependent on probable team interactions, is it? You've had plenty of games where you can rando-zap someone from the RVS stage based on OPs alone. Why downplay your abilities here?
*insert obligatory scummier because I'm the scum claim, here*
Rhand, what is the definitive guide to scum reading you? No less than 500 words. And go.