There is just no way that someone needs to defend their RVS that much. He wasn't responding to things really. Eternal is vastly misrepresenting how those conversations flowed. I mean ****. Eternal was so ready to shut me down even Torg himself said they were all about his RVS, after Eternal tried to white knight him and say they weren't.
It's almost like I was directly asked to defend my RVS! Almost everything I said in those first couple of posts was answering a question that someone asked me, because I answer questions that people ask. I don't see why you're trying to emphasize my first couple of posts so hard.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"When I'm sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story"
-Barney Stinson
The really sad part is that I was the one attacking your first post, so for D_V to say that I'm white-knighting you by acknowledging your right to defend yourself against my attacks is just...headache-inducing.
I don't see why you're trying to emphasize my first couple of posts so hard.
The fact that you haven't posted a huge amount of content after those posts probably has something to do with it.
You said a long time ago that you were gonna post something like Blues' rainbow wall to show your current Mafia/Town reads on everyone. Can we get that from you now? I'm only certain of your opinion on maybe four people in the game at the moment.
That last sentence just convinced me that Torg might somehow be town and against the buddying of Eternal. Eternal on the other hand has gone full something. And hes made up things that actually are patently false such as me caring about the golli*** wagon. I just don't see him as scum. I think its a bad lynch but I haven't attacked anyone for it. I don't even think I've said anyone was scummy for that wagon. I'm at a loss there the fact that he is so sensitive about that is just bizarre.
I'll address this and the next quote below. They tie into each other.
"Votes for a lurker"? There is a difference between someone who's completely inactive, versus someone who's in the game but not actually contributing. The latter kind of lurking is an obvious scum-tell. Torg was voting Golli*** (who you're constantly bending over backwards to defend) for doing the latter kind of lurking, as, again, you'd know if you'd bothered reading, cuz he made it quite clear. (Or you're just choosing to ignore words, as I expect.) And I know you're at least vaguely aware that posting without contributing content is the worst kind of lurking because you specifically said Mograppler was "lurking in plain sight" by doing so. But, of course, when it's Golli*** doing it, it's okay and he shouldn't be voted for it, right
I bolded what seemed to be important.
Eternal, one question, where does he call out or mention mog as actively lurking? Because I ctrlf'ed it in his posts, and I can't find it.
D_V, minus (possibly this) and the potential defense of golli***, was there another thing he made up?
That last sentence just convinced me that Torg might somehow be town and against the buddying of Eternal. Eternal on the other hand has gone full something. And hes made up things that actually are patently false such as me caring about the golli*** wagon. I just don't see him as scum. I think its a bad lynch but I haven't attacked anyone for it. I don't even think I've said anyone was scummy for that wagon. I'm at a loss there the fact that he is so sensitive about that is just bizarre.
I'll address this and the next quote below. They tie into each other.
"Votes for a lurker"? There is a difference between someone who's completely inactive, versus someone who's in the game but not actually contributing. The latter kind of lurking is an obvious scum-tell. Torg was voting Golli*** (who you're constantly bending over backwards to defend) for doing the latter kind of lurking, as, again, you'd know if you'd bothered reading, cuz he made it quite clear. (Or you're just choosing to ignore words, as I expect.) And I know you're at least vaguely aware that posting without contributing content is the worst kind of lurking because you specifically said Mograppler was "lurking in plain sight" by doing so. But, of course, when it's Golli*** doing it, it's okay and he shouldn't be voted for it, right
I bolded what seemed to be important.
Eternal, one question, where does he call out or mention mog as actively lurking? Because I ctrlf'ed it in his posts, and I can't find it.
D_V, minus (possibly this) and the potential defense of golli***, was there another thing he made up?
If Eternal can pull up where D_V calls out mog for lurking, then he has yet to lie. In which case, we are probably on the right track with D_V.
You ninja'ed me. The link wouldn't open on my computer. Or my tablet. Are they working for everyone else, and if so anyone have any ideas on how to fix that?
I'd like to handle that by PMs instead of getting us off-topic, but it's teeeeeeechnically related to the game so that wouldn't be right. I'll just try to use quotes instead of links in future, although I'd prefer to keep my posts more concise and only use quotes when I really need to pick apart things in particular rather than just reference a general contradiction between two posts.
The main thing I'd suggest is waiting for the page to load fully, scrolling alllllll the way up, then scrolling back to the link before clicking it. Sometimes the MTGS header loads last and pushes down the rest of the page, such that when you think you're clicking on a link you're actually clicking in the wrong place. If that fixes the issue for you, I can keep using links, which would make me happier.
You ninja'ed me. The link wouldn't open on my computer. Or my tablet. Are they working for everyone else, and if so anyone have any ideas on how to fix that?
Problem solved. Note to self, Edge sucks and should not exist.
Man, that's top-tier. Same frickin' post, "Lurker+Torg+Mograppler is scum-team" and "actually Torg might somehow be Town but I'm still gonna chain-read Eternal as scum due to his scum-buddying with Torg". Your chain-reads are nonsensical and yet you keep making them. If you're Town you need to stop your chain-reading, cuz it's terrible.
But I don't think there's any significant chance that you are.
Arguing that people are attacking Folza for baseless reasons is particularly priceless. 1) nago is the one who turned us onto the Folza wagon, and you're town-reading him in spite of that. So you obviously don't believe that bull***** argument either; you're just using it to throw shade, yet again. 2) The Folza wagon is dead and has been since you two replaced in; we explicitly discussed how we were just using it to get some activity going and focus the new players onto a specific conversational topic. So of course its basis was weak: we admitted as much.
I had multiple consecutive posts describing your Golli***-buddying; I'm not repeating myself that much cuz you can't bother to read the first time.
I've responded to everything you've said with which I disagree (unless someone else like Blues and Torg covered it), so trying to reverse the silence-as-acceptance argument is just, as usual, misrepresentation and baseless shade. I may have ignored some parts where you repeated the same thing after I already discredited them, because they're just ridiculous, like how you again just referred to Torg defending his RVS when I'd already described that in detail. (One was NOT an RVS defense, and one was RESPONDING TO A QUESTION WHICH IS NOT A TELL IN ANY WAY.)
So yeah, go ahead and vote me for "defending" someone that you're now Town-reading, cuz that'll be just as logical as everything else you've done thus far.
Town can start wagons and be wrong.
Jesus ******* christ.
You keep using this as an argument but it isn't one. You keep jumping ship every time you say something dumb and I call you out. That's a TERRIBLE reason for a wagon. I agree Folza wagon is bad. Yet when we replaced in people like Torg continued to read Folza as scum. And have continued to justify it. You're narrative is a lie. Never once did people say "We are just using this for a moment. Its a legit wagon, with legit (but bad) arguments for the folza wagon. Hell I'm still discussing it. You never admitted it was weak. EVER.
And you are white knighting him. He's even using your defense to defend himself now. That's literally a 100% white knighting.
Oh god and if I see Eternal say "If you're town." One more time. That's such a scum tell. You know what lynch me the town can take a miss lynch, then lynch Eternal after I flip town.
Self-voting is playing against your win-con regardless of alignment, so I strongly suggest taking that back. Your arguments have been somewhere between scummy and just awful play thus far, but that is simply awful play no matter what.
The entire reason the wagon started was to get some activity going. You can keep denying this all you want, but that just makes you look like scum or the laziest reader ever, and I'm still betting on the former, cuz I doubt you're that bad. (Although that self-vote does make you look "that bad", but unfortunately for you I don't accept derp-clears, which it appears that self-vote was an attempt to do.) Here is where I suggest starting a wagon, any wagon, to get a topic of conversation on which to focus the new players, and here is where nago turns that wagon over to Folza, instead of your slot as I had preferred.
I'm done reading the thread for you. From now on, when you say things that are just flat-out untrue, I'm simply going to quote them followed by the word "lie". Compensating for your illiteracy is not in my job description.
Yeah, this isn't salvageable; we can't lynch anyone but D_V now after that play. If he's Town, self-voting in this situation shows so little respect for the game and is so anti-Town that the typical Day One mislynch (before Town's had a chance to use investigative roles) is best spent on him anyway. Self-voting here is just a scum play in every way, since he's not actually gonna go through with it (it's against the wincon regardless of alignment), so self-voting for a bit and then unvoting later is clearly just a silly way to get pity points from Town.
I hate to say it because I'm not quite ready to end the day yet, but I'm inclined to agree with EL. The play is bad, and just smells like either scum, or really really bad town. This self-vote feels like a game of chicken, a challenge almost like "I dare you" type thing. Now I guess it's time to call the bluff.
unvote vote D_V
@Wheat, there have been some jumps in votes, can we get a vote count. I lost track of them.
I hate to say it because I'm not quite ready to end the day yet
Honestly, I don't mind ending Day One early. Scum has a massive information advantage on Day One, so, the longer it goes on, the more time they have to spread misinformation. As far as I'm concerned, Day One should generally be:
1) No Lynch, if we have lots of investigative Town roles who can do good work on Night One. We have no confirmation that's the case here, so that's not an option.
or
2) a quick lynch on the most blatantly scummy person, to limit the damage that scum can do with their information advantage.
Day Two is usually the longest day in my experience, as that gives Town the best balance of numerical advantage and information with which to work.
Regarding the vote count, only two people's votes have changed (you, and D_V twice). That's technically "five" on D_V, though it's really four.
Yeah, this isn't salvageable; we can't lynch anyone but D_V now after that play. If he's Town, self-voting in this situation shows so little respect for the game and is so anti-Town that the typical Day One mislynch (before Town's had a chance to use investigative roles) is best spent on him anyway. Self-voting here is just a scum play in every way, since he's not actually gonna go through with it (it's against the wincon regardless of alignment), so self-voting for a bit and then unvoting later is clearly just a silly way to get pity points from Town.
You can literally get lynched tomorrow if the town has any sense.
Self-voting is playing against your win-con regardless of alignment, so I strongly suggest taking that back. Your arguments have been somewhere between scummy and just awful play thus far, but that is simply awful play no matter what.
The entire reason the wagon started was to get some activity going. You can keep denying this all you want, but that just makes you look like scum or the laziest reader ever, and I'm still betting on the former, cuz I doubt you're that bad. (Although that self-vote does make you look "that bad", but unfortunately for you I don't accept derp-clears, which it appears that self-vote was an attempt to do.) Here is where I suggest starting a wagon, any wagon, to get a topic of conversation on which to focus the new players, and here is where nago turns that wagon over to Folza, instead of your slot as I had preferred.
I'm done reading the thread for you. From now on, when you say things that are just flat-out untrue, I'm simply going to quote them followed by the word "lie". Compensating for your illiteracy is not in my job description.
Go read
Blue Eternal and IDK anyone else that joined that wagon. You're cherry picking.
I'll also say this once. Stop insulting. I decided to play nice, not mean.
You can literally get lynched tomorrow if the town has any sense.
And if it turns out that this was actually a TvT confrontation all along (and you were just making things up and twisting facts because...reasons)? Then your self-voting would have killed two Townies. Don't self-vote. Ever. It's anti-Town and against your wincon regardless of alignment, period.
I'll also say this once. Stop insulting. I decided to play nice, not mean.
This is fair; my bad. I play Mafia IRL with friends and we verbally abuse each other because that's what friends do, so when I'm in my Mafia mentality I'm not particularly kind. I'll see about fixing that.
I mean I'm not the one who white knighted put words into someones mouth had them repeat those words, and misrepresent wagon the followers on that wagon and ignore every other scum tell others have made.
Take Torg for example joined the Folza wagon for total band wagon purposes and then attacked me because others suggested it. Or Blue eclipse very much took the folza wagon as a real wagon. Hence all his questions to me about why I was reading the folza tells as null.
Your understanding of self votes is laughably noob, but that can be addressed another time.
You've misrepresented about everything you've talked about. You've said ridiculous things such as silence is acceptance which it isn't, which was a large argument you've made. You are so tunneled its not even funny, but you keep trying to tell others what correct play is, and saying that to me is a joke I've got years on you for playing this game.
Oh and my favorite thing, you keep saying that the Mog read is too much of a stretch yet a large large argument from you is that I was trying to stop a wagon. Something you still have yet to explain although I've asked you repeatedly where I ever said that I thought people being on that wagon were scum for being on that wagon.
saying that to me is a joke I've got years on you for playing this game
Annnnnd suddenly it all makes sense.
Sigh.
Unvote
I think this is TvT -- which makes your self-vote and "lynch my accuser tomorrow" nauseatingly, embarrassingly poor play, cuz you'll just cause two Townie deaths.
But it's clear that I'm not gonna be able to explain that to you, because you think that having years of Mafia experience automagically makes you understand optimal gameplay, even to the extent of ignoring basic math in the process. News flash: experience does not equal skill.
I finally understand why your reads are so nonsensical: it's just the blind arrogance of an experienced-but-not-good player, assuming that he can rely on gut instinct "honed" by years of play, rather than actual evidence. Too bad instinct has absolutely no bearing in a forum setting because tells are incredibly easy to hide when you get to think about every post for minutes before you make it. But at least that makes you probably not scum, just utterly useless to me.
I'm not voting you, but I'm probably not taking anything you say seriously for the rest of the game, either.
saying that to me is a joke I've got years on you for playing this game
Annnnnd suddenly it all makes sense.
Sigh.
Unvote
I think this is TvT -- which makes your self-vote and "lynch my accuser tomorrow" nauseatingly, embarrassingly poor play, cuz you'll just cause two Townie deaths.
But it's clear that I'm not gonna be able to explain that to you, because you think that having years of Mafia experience automagically makes you understand optimal gameplay, even to the extent of ignoring basic math in the process. News flash: experience does not equal skill.
I finally understand why your reads are so nonsensical: it's just the blind arrogance of an experienced-but-not-good player, assuming that he can rely on gut instinct "honed" by years of play, rather than actual evidence. Too bad instinct has absolutely no bearing in a forum setting because tells are incredibly easy to hide when you get to think about every post for minutes before you make it. But at least that makes you probably not scum, just utterly useless to me.
I'm not voting you, but I'm probably not taking anything you say seriously for the rest of the game, either.
Still yet to explain the golli*** comments too.
Also this is perma being quoted to you respond to it.
...and now he thinks I'm scum backpedalling away from what would have been an absolutely free lynch, while still refusing to read the multiple consecutive posts I made about the apparent Golli*** connection
how can someone be this bad
Nevermind. Looks like we're not gonna get anywhere unless this happens. I gave him a shot.
...and now he thinks I'm scum backpedalling away from what would have been an absolutely free lynch, while still refusing to read the multiple consecutive posts I made about the apparent Golli*** connection
how can someone be this bad
Nevermind. Looks like we're not gonna get anywhere unless this happens. I gave him a shot.
saying that to me is a joke I've got years on you for playing this game
Annnnnd suddenly it all makes sense.
Sigh.
Unvote
I think this is TvT -- which makes your self-vote and "lynch my accuser tomorrow" nauseatingly, embarrassingly poor play, cuz you'll just cause two Townie deaths.
But it's clear that I'm not gonna be able to explain that to you, because you think that having years of Mafia experience automagically makes you understand optimal gameplay, even to the extent of ignoring basic math in the process. News flash: experience does not equal skill.
I finally understand why your reads are so nonsensical: it's just the blind arrogance of an experienced-but-not-good player, assuming that he can rely on gut instinct "honed" by years of play, rather than actual evidence. Too bad instinct has absolutely no bearing in a forum setting because tells are incredibly easy to hide when you get to think about every post for minutes before you make it. But at least that makes you probably not scum, just utterly useless to me.
I'm not voting you, but I'm probably not taking anything you say seriously for the rest of the game, either.
Still yet to explain the golli*** comments too.
Also this is perma being quoted to you respond to it.
Also this is perma being quoted to you respond to it.
Also this is perma being quoted to you respond to it.
Also this is perma being quoted to you respond to it.
Also this is perma being quoted to you respond to it.
...and now he thinks I'm scum backpedalling away from what would have been an absolutely free lynch, while still refusing to read the multiple consecutive posts I made about the apparent Golli*** connection
how can someone be this bad
Nevermind. Looks like we're not gonna get anywhere unless this happens. I gave him a shot.
saying that to me is a joke I've got years on you for playing this game
Annnnnd suddenly it all makes sense.
Sigh.
Unvote
I think this is TvT -- which makes your self-vote and "lynch my accuser tomorrow" nauseatingly, embarrassingly poor play, cuz you'll just cause two Townie deaths.
But it's clear that I'm not gonna be able to explain that to you, because you think that having years of Mafia experience automagically makes you understand optimal gameplay, even to the extent of ignoring basic math in the process. News flash: experience does not equal skill.
I finally understand why your reads are so nonsensical: it's just the blind arrogance of an experienced-but-not-good player, assuming that he can rely on gut instinct "honed" by years of play, rather than actual evidence. Too bad instinct has absolutely no bearing in a forum setting because tells are incredibly easy to hide when you get to think about every post for minutes before you make it. But at least that makes you probably not scum, just utterly useless to me.
I'm not voting you, but I'm probably not taking anything you say seriously for the rest of the game, either.
Still yet to explain the golli*** comments too.
Also this is perma being quoted to you respond to it.
Also this is perma being quoted to you respond to it.
Also this is perma being quoted to you respond to it.
Also this is perma being quoted to you respond to it.
Also this is perma being quoted to you respond to it.
If you think you've answered you can quote yourself.
I'm uncertain what you mean about misrepresenting post 61. Where did he do that?
See post #218. Attempting to explain it in #231 by outright ignoring basic context within the same post. I rebutted this in #233, which Audio has promptly ignored in favor of asking you to get Eternal instead of Mog (even though your vote was on Torg). I suppose he'll be happy that you listened to him, though.
Regarding players folding to pressure, it's worth noting that my concerns with Folza have been, and still are, not that he simply bows to pressure, but that he makes no attempt to defend himself at all. If the person is town, then to bow to pressure with no defense attempted directly harms town both because it would eliminate a townie and because it casts suspicion on the people voting on them. If the person is scum, however, then simply saying nothing and allowing us to lynch them - particularly early on like this - could help the scum team by depriving us of any clues that could be used to try and ferret out other scum. This is why I consider bowing to pressure with no attempt at a defense to be a scum tell. And do note, it's specifically the lack of a defense of any kind that I'm concerned with. And yes, this is the only attack on Folza - why do you think that I've moved towards other targets that seem to be going out of their way to paint themselves as scum?
Also, you mentioned Sunray bowing to pressure, but I'm curious as to where you saw that - Sunray was replaced out for you because he simply didn't post at all.
For you to vote for yourself has a couple of explanations that I can come up with - more of which lean towards scum than town. (I acknowledge that the following section is WIFOM, but I believe it helps show why I feel his self-lynch is overwhelmingly a scum move, so please bear with me.) It could be you trying to play chicken with the town, expecting us to back down for fear of lynching a townie, which I'd consider to be a scum move (as a townie would not take the risk of having themselves lynched). It could be scum trying to aggressively distance themselves from scum - which, if that were the case, would seem to paint Lurker as scum. It could be scum trying to fake distance from a townie in an effort to make us think they're scum. It could be a townie choosing to abandon their own scumreads solely for the purpose of making a point - in which case, you're playing against your win condition and might as well be scum. Or it could simply be that you somehow have deluded yourself into thinking this is actually a good play because you truly believe Lurker to be scum, in which case I'd argue you're probably still a hazard to the town by virtue of being able to make abysmal mistakes such as this - unless you've confirmed Lurker to be town, you're risking loss of not one but two days for the town by pushing us to lynch Lurker after you, which would put us at lylo if Lurker flips town. Or you could be a townie who doesn't care whether Lurker is town or not, and are trying to get yourself and him lynched to be spiteful, in which case lynching you on principle would still be the best choice (because if you're willing to risk losing the game for town out of spite, then town is better off without you). (WIFOM ends here.)
Overall, there are far too many possibilities that lead to you either being scum, or being town but playing horribly enough that you'd be a detriment to the town regardless. The first option - that you're playing chicken with the town - is bolded because it's the one your own responses indicate, particularly in #294. That all said, you commented that Lurker's understanding of self-votes is 'laughably noob' and 'can be addressed another time'. Well, it can't - address it now. Point me to a case where a townie self-lynching proves to be beneficial to town, moreso than the same townie trying to continue defending themselves and root out other scum until the lynch threshold is hit. It may only be day 1, but if we can avoid a town lynch, then we need to do so - and right now, the onus is on you to prove that you're town either to those of us already voting you up, or to enough of the undecided people to ensure that you don't get lynched. Or if you are town and still think there's some gambit you've got going with your own lynch that will lead us to scum with certainty, we need to know about it - the best plan you can come up with means nothing if we don't know what we're supposed to do to make it happen, after all.
Torg was responding to questions or comments made directly at him about his votes. #65 was in response to my #48 (and Lurker echoing the sentiment in #49). Torg's #79 was a response to Nago's #69. #80 was Torg's response to Lurker's #67. And in both of those latter two cases, Torg was replying to direct concerns about why he moved his vote to Olli***.
Eternal brought up the idea of starting a wagon in order to get discussion focused on someone, and to try and get more information from someone. Originally, it was going to be on Sunray's slot - I agreed with that because I was, at the time, leaning scum on him. I was also, at the time, leaning scum on Folza, and had made that perfectly clear. I didn't have anything leaning me more towards one than the other, so I was fine with switching between them then.
That you're getting upset with Lurker qualifying statements with 'if you're town' is, IMO, another scumtell on you - you're getting upset because he's not willing to just back down and admit you as town, when the only times that the qualifier should not be present is when a person is confirmed one way or another. And given how many people are voting for you right now, I don't see how you could make the mistake of thinking we've confirmed you town.
You mentioned to Lurker that him calling you out on correct play is a joke because you've got years on him playing the game. Then answer my questions, and provide examples where applicable. Because all of your years playing the game mean nothing to me unless you can actually demonstrate that what you're doing is good play.
And regarding your comment in #300: I'd be inclined to say the one who's bad at Mafia is more likely to be the one who's playing in a way that multiple players are beginning to view him as a policy lynch.
@King Torg: The reason D_V is focused so much on your earlier posts is because you haven't given us much since then to expand on, I'd assume. Correct that, please.
@Bloodmoon0324: I suggest using Chrome. (But then, I always suggest using Chrome.)
@EternalLurker: I might be able to support a no-lynch in an investigative-heavy game, but only if there's no way we can narrow down a lynch on someone unlikely to be an investigative first.
And I'm fairly sure that D_V's argument regarding the Folza wagon is that you originally suggested the wagon on Sunray to start focusing people on a point of discussion. As I had Sunray as one of my top scumreads at the time, I agreed in hopes of getting enough pressure to pull Sunray out of lurk mode and get him to defend himself, but Nago disagreed before suggesting Folza as a target to put pressure on him. You and I agreed to switch to Folza (me because Folza was also one of my top scumreads at the time, and I didn't have anything to elevate one over the other - putting pressure on either was fine). So it's not quite as cut-and-dried as you said, but there's not much more there either.
If D_V does turn out to be town, regardless of how bad his current play is, it likely would still then be worth reviewing his posting to see if there's something he might have seen that we should be keeping in mind at least. If nothing else, it can then add to our own body of evidence.
That being said, I want to ask you this - if your vote were the only one that mattered, and the game would be decided solely on how he flips, would you still lynch him? Or no?
@Rhand: I was going to tell you to enjoy your cruise, but then I saw you mention that you're working on a cruise. So, enjoy your cruise, and try not to work too hard! (I'd much rather work on a cruise than have the call center job I have now, I think.) And if you do get the chance, I hope you can provide a bit more input, not just on the D_V situation, but in general!
Regarding players folding to pressure, it's worth noting that my concerns with Folza have been, and still are, not that he simply bows to pressure, but that he makes no attempt to defend himself at all. If the person is town, then to bow to pressure with no defense attempted directly harms town both because it would eliminate a townie and because it casts suspicion on the people voting on them. If the person is scum, however, then simply saying nothing and allowing us to lynch them - particularly early on like this - could help the scum team by depriving us of any clues that could be used to try and ferret out other scum. This is why I consider bowing to pressure with no attempt at a defense to be a scum tell. And do note, it's specifically the lack of a defense of any kind that I'm concerned with. And yes, this is the only attack on Folza - why do you think that I've moved towards other targets that seem to be going out of their way to paint themselves as scum?
Uhh
No.
Folza isn't an experienced enough player to think that through. That's evident. He isn't trying to deny the town interactions.
Sunray said gg smile face. That seemed like they were done pretty quickly.
Ya'll need to get your heads out of your ass and realize self vote doesn't equal self lynch.
Trigger happy mafia is a game I've self voted before to much effect. Its not a newb play. The fact that you all think it is. Well that's noob.
That you're getting upset with Lurker qualifying statements with 'if you're town' is, IMO, another scumtell on you - you're getting upset because he's not willing to just back down and admit you as town, when the only times that the qualifier should not be present is when a person is confirmed one way or another. And given how many people are voting for you right now, I don't see how you could make the mistake of thinking we've confirmed you town.
Oh no.
You misunderstand me greatly here. Its not that he isn't town reading me. Its that he keeps adding qualifying statements such as this. I think he knows I'm town and thus keeps adding these statements. Its a way for him to later play it off as an oops mislynch.
Unvote
Ehhh I outed myself for what I was doing here.
Its not going to work as well because of all of the lurking this game anyways.
Umm mm.
Ok I'll hit the Eternal Lurker thing now.
Eternal has attempted to set me up as defending golli***. I'm not certain if hes town or not after rereading some of it. He is approaching the game as if he established that I did and then building off of that such as 252. He said "I've made many posts about the golli*** thing" and its true he has. But hes bad enough at this game to not realize hes never set up a connection. I've never once suspected anyone for being on the golli*** wagon. I've never said anyone was scum for being on the wagon. I've never attacked anyone for being on the wagon.
Frankly I'm uncertain what the case is on me. Eternal is going to insult my ability to understand English here. Because that's the only trick hes got.
I'm a little baffled how a player sees my jump from Mograppler to others as a stretch, but sees their own even *****tier jump to be good. And is so certain about it. That kind of pretentiousness is a whole new level specifically from someone so new and bad that they talk with such self righteousness. I might **** around with my friends pretty hard myself but I would never attempt to insult as he claims he does with his friends in defense of his joke of attacks. Its petty its a poor way to argue and hes not even right. And hes ignoring when others are pointing that out and like a child going la la la I'm right.
Take that and talk about how town should be open to new information. Eternals basically ignored everything I've said about Trog and about the scum tells from Mograppler such as voting wheat a massive scum tell.
I'm being tunnled on. Its a bad play. And to have others tell me my play is bad is a joke. You guys don't know what bad play is that's evident. If one player gets mislynched is it their fault of the 8 other townies that did ***** and lynched them? Who's the bad player? Maybe instead of blaming others for your own bad play of lynching a townie you should get good, and not lynch them. Its text book Dunning Kruger effect. Now I'm not saying its all on the town either if that player got lynched maybe they did something wrong as well, but its not all them.
I don't know how to help you guys. You've got one really active player that perma flames. You've got blue eclipse who is clearly new, but trying and reads as town for such. And the rest with like less than 30 posts.
You know what I feel very confident about my Mog read and King read.
@D_V: I have asked you to provide examples of situations where bowing to pressure and not even offering the semblance of a defense is not an anti-town move. You have categorically failed to do so. I'll also note that I have been specifying this as anti-town, rather than specifically scum, as the play hinders town more than scum regardless of faction. Because it's true that offering no defense has almost no real benefit for scum (I've already covered what little benefit it can offer). However, any play that goes against the objectives of a town player (in short, obtain as much information as possible to locate scum, get scum lynched, and avoid being lynched yourself to maintain numbers advantage for town) must be viewed as scumtells specifically because they are plays that benefit the scum rather than the town, regardless of the alignment of the player making them. And I don't intend to allow scum to hide behind lack of experience any more than I will allow scum to hide behind superior experience. So if you'd like to counterpoint, please provide scenarios where a town player offering no defence against a developing wagon on day 1 and instead allowing them to be lynched would be beneficial to town.
You say that self-vote doesn't mean self-lynch. Yet, by the rules of the game, votes lead to lynch - especially in this game, where a deadline lynch will occur on the person with the most votes regardless of whether they reach the majority threshold or not. So self-voting can very well mean self-lynch. Furthermore, you've directly expressed through your posts that you were trying to play chicken with the voting block set against you, and the town as a whole. While I thank you for ending the farce that was your self-vote, I still have to ask why you think that, as town, voting for yourself could ever be considered anything but an anti-town move.
You talk about how we are 'noob'. You talk about how for us to complain about your bad play is a joke, and we don't know what bad play is. You tell us to 'get good'. Yet if you see us as such, you are part of the problem rather than the solution - when directly asked to explain how some of the moves you're defending are anything but anti-town, you simply throw out the 'noob' counter instead of explaining the logic or providing examples. But what I'm seeing from you is behavior, and the defense of behaviors, that I cannot find any reasoning for that is not anti-town - and again, I can only judge by actions, not by your supposed experience. So give me a reason for these actions, and I'll have a reason to reconsider where I stand on your alignment as well. You're right that we have too many people who still seem to be lurking, and some of them have outstanding questions that I'm waiting for answers on (I'm looking at you in particular, AudioTsunami). But that doesn't mean the questions directed at you aren't also worth answering. So answer them - if you are town, then fill in those gaps in my logic, because I can't come to that conclusion when the only logical reasons I see for your actions are pointing to anti-town motives.
@Wheat_Grinder: Could you please throw a prod in Nago's general direction? (Everyone else has at least posted within 72 hours, as of this post.) Thanks!
Umm to the first point I guess I get what you're saying.
I'd stress anti town isn't scum. IDK any other way to put that to make sense with what you're saying. I'd more classify it as not pro town. Which IDK its just a null tell. Which is what I'm trying to stress. Its sort of not towny, but its not a scum tell. I don't know any other way to phrase this. Just because someone acts against what you perceive as the interest of the town doesn't mean that they are scum. Lets not get further in to it than that because we could go really down the rabbit hole.
Its the same thing with me self voting. Its not exactly pro-town, but its not scummy. I've seen plenty of players vote themselves when frustrated or as I use it typically which is to generate some sort read. I've also seen scum implode and vote themselves.
That's what I'm trying to get across as new. You're reading too deep into this I feel. Its not a behavior tell really. Neither folding nor me self voting. Maybe you can add it with other behavior to make it so, but on its own its null. Lurking is anti-town, but I've seen plenty of games with town lurking. Does this make them scum? No. Their town. Does this mean they are playing bad? Not really. A good player can get reads off of very little and roll with it.
I guess the best way for me to try and explain this is. Playing pro-town is playing "optimally" if you will. Nobody plays optimally. Ever. So everyone does things that are not pro-town.
You talk about behavior. But think about it. I'm a very experienced player and when I say my scum game is good its good. I rarely lose as scum. It becomes WIFOM but am I really going to play this way as scum? You're thinking too small. Wheres my end game?
Take a step back and look at who is on my wagon.
You have Eternal with making up things about me attacking a wagon I never attacked. You've said as much I think. You have bloodmoon who also said that. Yet called me scum? For what reason?
And you have Rhand.
What are you reading as a scum tell from me?
You're equating anti-town to scum. Which is just so silly to me.
I mean just think about it.
A wagon starts a player joins it, says they had their doubts but didn't want to shake the game up.
That's anti-town.
The same player instead attacks the player leading the wagon who was town and leads to their lynch.
That's anti-town.
The same player instead diverts the towns attention to another player who happens to be town.
That's anti-town.
The same player instead diverts the towns attention to another player who happens to be scum.
But diverted the player they diverted from is scum too.
That's anti-town.
And yet I can make arguments for each of these being pro-town as well.
Welcome to mafia. Nothing is black and white. Its a frustration of mine because I feel that almost any behavior can be argued either way.
AutoTsunami I read back through EL's posts 56 and 61. Am I missing a link here? I'm not sure what you meant when you tied the two together. Just looking for some clarity on it.
Both are responses to the same exact post. He first fired off a joke, then felt nervous/wasn't satisfied so he revisited it unsolicited to try to appear more town. The only reason to revisit something you blew off with a joke is to supersede any suspicion.
Now with 214, he refuses to address my point at all and simply writes me of as scum or tunneling, which is laziness if we're being generous.
Hey EL, can I get another flowchart of what town and scum would do in this situation, cause it was oh so helpful in 61.
Also it's silly how many people are voting a lurker on day 1. Y'all need to look at the people in plain sight
Does a scum member post this?
I think not. Hes got legitimate concerns. Hell its some of my concerns with Eternal as well. I'm not the only one who has a problem with how pretentious he is.
At the end I'll say this I think you're splitting hairs. I think you're trying to solve the game but focusing way to much on micro things that don't matter. You're focusing on the well folding to pressure isn't pro-town. And my response is Who the **** cares? Is it a scum move? Does it make him scum? Then lets move the on and find scum.
@D_V: I equate anti-town actions to scumtells because if a player is knowingly choosing a path that is anti-town, they are inhibiting the town's chances. This only benefits scum. As such, any town player should be working to avoid options that are anti-town, particularly if it is something that is clearly anti-town such as refusing to offer any defense or explanation when asked. That said, you mentioned that your self-vote was being used primarily to generate reads. I still feel myself that such a move at this stage of the game would be anti-town, but I understand that our opinions may differ there, and thank you for at least giving me some understanding of what you hoped to accomplish.
And I'm happy to go over what I'm seeing as scumtells on you.
I've already explained my concerns regarding your self-vote, so I don't believe there's anything more to be gained from beating that dead horse unless you'd like to continue the discussion with more information.
The first is that in #177, your argument for Mog is built on two things. I understand the concerns regarding his no-lynch suggestion initially. But the other reason you cited is that he is lurking in plain sight - posting infrequently, and providing little to no actual content. Yet, within the same post, you cited Folza as seeming town, and immediately after in #188, you said that he hasn't said anything of merit, which you would consider as being town from an experienced player and only neutral from a new player. You followed this up in #234 where you cited both Audio as neutral to town and explicitly stated that there's not a lot of content from their posts. So there's now three players who you're reading as town based on low posting and a lack of content provided, when your very first scum read was based in large part off of a player's low posting and lack of content. That you've made such duplicitous claims is a scumtell to me.
In #246, I expressed my concern about why you voted Torg over Lurker when you'd previously cited far more of your own scumtells on Lurker than on Torg. You responded to other concerns of mine (re: Folza) in #250, but failed to even reference this. AudioTsunami (who I already have a scumread on) posts in #266 with nothing more than a comment for you to 'get mog later, get EL now', immediately before I reiterate my own questions regarding the subject in #267. In #269, you reply that you felt you'd found the scumteam - Lurker, Torg and Mog - and didn't care who you lynched first. But after responding to some other concerns, you then switch your vote to Lurker, suggesting that Torg might be town. If you didn't care who you lynch first, as you cited, then you wouldn't have seen a reason to change the vote based on my questions - and the timing of the vote being immediately after Audio's post to go after Lurker is extremely suspect. That is also a scumtell to me, as it seems like you're trying to swing to Lurker at Audio's direction, and coming up with a flimsy justification for doing so by suddenly finding a reason to read Torg as town.
The fact that you claimed you suddenly see Torg as town in that post, and yet still continued to push him as part of the scumteam in future posts (right up to the recent vote change in #305) raises red flags for me - it seems as though you're trying to adjust your claimed reads to better target whoever you want to get focus on at the time. That you kept your vote off of Lurker (when revoting after removing the self-vote) without any particular indication of why, or any thought that you consider him more likely to be town, raises more of the same flags, and I also noticed the same flip-flopping behavior regarding Rhand in #204 (where you cite him as scum with no explanation) and #234 (where you cite him as town with no explanation). Flip-flopping on several people, with no reasoning or indications of why given? Once is random chance, twice is coincidence, more than that is a pattern, and this pattern does not paint you in a positive light either.
Starting with #292, you started mentioning your greater experience in many of your posts as if it was support for your argument, and likewise started using the 'noob' card to discredit opposing arguments. Instead of pointing out actual logic, you try to sway other players with the idea that you are playing the game right and the rest of us are playing it wrong. That you're resorting to those kinds of attacks is a scumtell to me as well, since it suggests that you're running out of other arguments to use based on logic and posts.
And lastly, your question regarding the post quoted from Audio. I absolutely could see a scum member posting this. I've already explained why it is that his first argument falls flat - Audio was equating Lurker's posts in #56 and #61 as responses to the exact same comments, which they were not (yes, both referenced - in part - the same post, but #56 was a joke played off of a single comment within the post, #61 was a serious response addressing both another part of the initial post being responded to and a follow-up made afterwards), and comments that the only reason for a follow-up would be to supersede suspicion. These comments could easily be made by Audio with the intent of drawing that exact suspicion onto Lurker, and I believe I've already covered my counterpoints to the arguments themselves in detail. He then goes on to comment that Lurker refused to address his point in #214, writing it off as scum or tunneling. Which is an entirely valid argument from Lurker given the following from Audio's #211:
Quote from AudioTsunami »
I'm not changing my vote for the rest of the day. EL is confscum in my mind.
If you have a way of defining this as not tunneling, then I'd like to hear it, but Lurker is perfectly justified in this, as Audio's own comments have left the onus on him to persuade others to follow his lead. If Audio is scum, this would be a perfect comment to undercut Lurker's position, while if he's town it just strikes me as a petulant response to Lurker acknowledging that Audio won't be swayed by any arguments. The next comment is clearly sarcastic, but would serve scum well as another attack on Lurker's previous WIFOM-laden post #61. His final portion of the comment, I would easily argue is more beneficial to scum!Audio than town!Audio, as Audio himself is a lurker (with a total of 10 posts across the thread thus far). He's trying to direct us away from scum, which would suit him quite well as scum, while a town player would be better served by looking at all possibilities, both among actives and inactives.
As always, I'm quite happy to discuss any of my points further if you wish to offer any counterpoints or need further details provided.
@Wheat_Grinder: I also noticed that in the previous votecount, you didn't reference D_V's vote on himself. Could you please confirm whether this was simply due to a syntax error in his vote (meaning the software couldn't parse it), or because you are not allowing self-votes and as a result did not count it? Thank you.
I disagree with the anti-town = scum. I've explained it. You're few is too simplistic. And explains quite a bit of the rest of the differing. You keep ignoring the vast majority of what I'm saying here. Anti-town doesn't equate to scum. You can't just make it so. I've shown you ample examples of this.
Mog is totally different than any of the other lurkers. I accused him of lurking in plain sight. Hes got one of the higher post counts in the game
D_V: this one is my strongest read. I was already suspicious of Mystic Sunday, because of what we have mentioned previously. Then he comes in and tries to make a joke asking someone else what it's like to be mafia. That screams scum to me. His defense of folza is one possible read, but I don't think it is the likelier one. This makes me think stronger that folza is scum.
Folza: see above. I am intetested to see how his login activity will be, and if he posts.
Snip
vote: MysticSunray
I agree with your analysis. I had comepletely forgotten about that, and had brushed it off as a joke because I had assumed he posted again. Now I don't think we should put enough votes to get to the next day. I would like to wait until we get the 2 other players active or switched out. Going to day 2 without information on them would be unwise
This is his reason for voting Mystic. Which is in response to Eternal who said Mystic disappeared after being called scum. That's the only reason hes scum reading Mystic.
Post 55 is the only other thing that he says about mystic.
And that's really his only opinions in the entire game. There isn't much else posted by them. That's extremely different than not posting at all. Its just floating. At least other players can be marked off as IRL problems or losing interest or deciding forum mafia isn't for them, but this is active posting but literally about nothing. Its scummy.
Plus my claim wasn't “About a players low post count” its about lack of content in such a LARGE post count.
I can't help you with the second part. Votes are votes. I vote as I want as I see fit. Your argument also folds in on itself. You're right I didn't care which one I lynched first. So, why would it mater if I swapped my vote? It doesn't mater as long as it happens. Like what are you saying here?
I'm swapping my reads around based on the information given to me. King Torg made two other posts since I made that post and I changed my mind. Happens same with Rhand, fun fact I might have put him on my scum list to see reactions. I'll give you some advice since you seem to be going down this path. Some players consider consistency to be a town tell and thus not being consistent a scum tell. I don't I think consistency is really easy to fake.
You misunderstand me. I really didn't feel like typing this much to explain such basic concepts. I'm not trying to be dismissive its just a waste of time. Me spending so much time for example trying to explain that “anti-town does not equate to scum” is basic to me. Its a boring conversation. I know I'm right.
Pffft I don't know about Audio
I really need more there.
I'm unwilling to really commit to anything with so little to work with. Just like with Folza. The fact that you all think that within 5 posts of nothing/lurking you can determine someone to be scum is wacky. I wish I was as good as that.
Gah all those walls of text... not exactly what I was expecting in a game full of newbies lol.
I'll try to read them in the course of the day inbetween arrivals.
Wow, that took my entire morning to get caught up. That was intense. I'll get out a better post out later today when I have time.
This is a game where you have to go based what you think the reasons that people do certain things. Everything can be considered townie or scummy. It all depends on how you think would react in a certain situation. You can not play based purely on logic. Then experienced players would just do what was "statistically beneficial the the town" and you would get nowhere. You have to play some on emotions. In regards to my vote on mystic, I have played a couple games IRL where a new player who is mafia, gives a tell, thinks they are screwed because someone accused them, and they pretty much do what mystic did.
@Wheat_Grinder: Could you please throw a prod in Nago's general direction? (Everyone else has at least posted within 72 hours, as of this post.) Thanks!
@Wheat_Grinder: I also noticed that in the previous votecount, you didn't reference D_V's vote on himself. Could you please confirm whether this was simply due to a syntax error in his vote (meaning the software couldn't parse it), or because you are not allowing self-votes and as a result did not count it? Thank you.
It's coming from a parsing error.
D_V: Please revote.
If D_V does turn out to be town, regardless of how bad his current play is, it likely would still then be worth reviewing his posting to see if there's something he might have seen that we should be keeping in mind at least. If nothing else, it can then add to our own body of evidence.
Nah. Just cuz we can trust the motivations doesn't mean we can trust the judgment of someone who continually repeats that "being anti-Town is a null tell". This isn't ******* complicated. If you're knowingly acting against Town's interests, you're scum or you're terrible, and if you've been playing this long and you still haven't had the terribleness lynched out of you, then you're playing with similarly terrible people and need to get that fixed with a few lynches until you learn how to play.
That being said, I want to ask you this - if your vote were the only one that mattered, and the game would be decided solely on how he flips, would you still lynch him? Or no?
Possibly not. I've come to the conclusion that he's more likely terrible Town than terrible scum. But he's still scummier than anyone else on my radar at the moment, so unless someone rises higher he's still my choice of Day One lynch in case I'm wrong. The only other person who I'm even vaguely considering lynching at the moment is Rhand, but between the two of them it's not really close right now.
Also, do you really see Audio as scum? He just seems like a hopelessly tunneled Townie to me, and now worse off because he sees justification for it from D_V. Bad play, but easier to excuse since he's not coupling it with arrogant bull***** about years of apparently-useless experience.
(Work in progress wall of text post. My apologies.)
I was out of town this weekend to help a friend move, and I was still in the process of re-reading at that time (around the middle of page 5). I see this morning that there has been plenty of discussion, especially by BluesEclipse and D_V about players folding to pressure. I've certainly still not gotten comfortable with this style of play (text-based), which is why I have been having sporadic posting and a lack of genuine activity. However, after some of my re-reading I finally wanted to share my opinion general opinion of all other players, as of the time of this post:
JulsSkogs
Lean: Town
Reasoning:
King Torg
Lean: Scummy
Reasoning:
Rhand
Lean: Neutral
Reasoning: Not enough posts or information to go on, but he has a desire to remain active even while on vacation (and recently posted #311), which I respect.
AudioTsunami
Lean: Netural/Scummy
Reasoning: Not enough information or posts. Can't determine if lurking, inactive, or scum and not wanting to post out of fear of his works/statements getting twisted by the Town.
fuggingolli***
Lean: Town
Reasoning:
nagobcnik
Lean: Town
Reasoning:
EternalLurker
Lean: Town
Reasoning: In my last post I unvoted for EternalLurker because my general reason for voting for him in the first place was unjustified (I voted for him because he voted for me). Now that Town discussion/focus has switched gears, I no longer have a reason to vote for EternalLurker. Will wait an see how my opinions change as the day proceeds.
Mograppler
Lean: Scummy
Reasoning:
BluesEclipse
Lean: Town
Reasoning: It seems he has a lot of experience with Mafia, has an opinion of every aspect of the game (including refrencing lines of thinking I wouldn't have even thought up (such as post #301). I respect your intelligence and attitude towards the game, and it seems like you are trying to get a read on everyone now, and not just specifically targeting me, although at points that targeting was justified.
D_V
Lean: Scummy
Reasoning: I don't know what kind of information EternalLurker has on you out-of-game, but in-game, the inconsistencies you have posted on page 6 and 7, in my opinion, justify the scum lean I have on you. I find some of your statements as far fetched as Eternal and Blues do. As well, there seems to already be a consensus about voting for you.
Bloodmoon0324
Lean: Town
Reasoning:
I will have to go back and re-read the reasoning behind the Town switching from voting for myself to voting for D_V. Once I have more information on that matter I will make another post.
Voting clarification:
UnvoteVote: D_V
Regardless of the statements EternalLurker has made in post #315, statements D_V has made on pages 6 and 7 in his discussions with Blues and Eternal are so far-fetched, I cannot justify a vote for anyone more than I can for D_V. I had already intended to write a post marking an FOS and vote on MysticSunray for lurking, but it seems that D_V has justified a vote for himself due to inconsistency.
D_V
Lean: Scummy
Reasoning: I don't know what kind of information EternalLurker has on you out-of-game, but in-game, the inconsistencies you have posted on page 6 and 7, in my opinion, justify the scum lean I have on you. I find some of your statements as far fetched as Eternal and Blues do. As well, there seems to already be a consensus about voting for you.
Regardless of the statements EternalLurker has made in post #315, statements D_V has made on pages 6 and 7 in his discussions with Blues and Eternal are so far-fetched, I cannot justify a vote for anyone more than I can for D_V. I had already intended to write a post marking an FOS and vote on MysticSunray for lurking, but it seems that D_V has justified a vote for himself due to inconsistency.
After reading through the past like two and a half pages, this about sums up my feelings (and in turn has saved me from having to write a big post about it myself, so thanks Folza!
@D_V: Currently at work right now, so I apologize if my response seems to be less detalied than normal.
You argue that anti-town does not equate to scum. I'm contending that selecting an anti-town course of action, when courses of action are available that would be more obviously beneficial to the town, is absolutely a scumtell. Acting based on available information in a way that you believe to be supportive of the town is not in itself anti-town, but continuing to pursue such a course of action when additional information has been provided that shows you to be acting to the town's detriment is. I can attribute the initial mistakes to ignorance, but if someone continues to make those same mistakes after being presented with reasoning for why the behavior is to the town's detriment, I have to consider malice, either in their choice to ignore the information provided or in acknowledging the information and still choosing to act in a way that is clearly to the detriment of the town.
I do thank you for providing your other points of concern regarding Mog, and elaborating on why you considered his pattern of posting without providing content different from that of others. I'm still uncertain how you came to the neutral-to-town lean on the others mentioned who were posting infrequently and without content, as I can't reconcile that as a townie behavior (neutral at best), and I feel that lurkers in general need to be considered just as much as the more active players to ensure that they don't slip through the cracks.
Regarding your choice to lynch Lurker when you did, the concern is this: you said you felt that it didn't matter which one you lynched first, in both of your previous responses to me regarding the matter. But you then changed the vote anyway, without providing any indication of why. It was either an effort to placate me by providing an action with no reasoning behind it (when I was asking for the reasoning behind your previous action instead), a change in response to Audio's comment for you to get Lurker (which would be, IMO, a scummy move since you'd be changing based off of a player that already seems scummy, with no real impetus from him to change your mind besides 'let's get lurker'), a change made with reasoning that you refused to provide (in which case your comment to me just blowing off the vote on Torg over Lurker would be questionable, since if you have reasoning for the change it's not just voting one over the other), or a change made with no reasoning whatsoever (which would be scummy as well, as it would indicate you're just trying to push towards whoever you feel you can get traction on at the time).
You are correct that you have the right to vote as you see fit, and to swap reads around. However, when you aren't sharing your own reasoning for those reads, I can only act based on what I'm seeing from you - and that's a developing pattern of flip-flopping on reads and votes alike. And as for saying consistency is not a town tell because it's easy to fake... consistency of action is easy to fake. Consistency of thought and logic, far less so. This is why I ask for reasoning behind these actions - even if I don't agree, and even if it leads to frequent changes in your opinions, it can help me to see that you've got a clear pattern of thought, that there is some logic that you're following. If the reasoning doesn't hold up based on what's provided in the topic, then it's a scumtell for me - but at the same time, withholding that reasoning makes it seem like you've got something to hide as well. Having this information also allows me to check it against reasoning for later actions, to ensure that the logic is consistent - as scum are generally required to manufacture reasons why a townie would instead be scum, the reasoning would not be as internally consistent (meaning that they would have to try and twist things more and more in order to justify 'scumtells' they are calling on townies they want to have lynched).
And I understand that you may feel some things are obvious, given your experience. But you said yourself that you believe you have more experience than most of the players in this game - so whether you know you're right or not, whether it's boring to you or not, when less experienced players ask you to explain these concepts, you really should consider doing so to ensure that they can understand.
As for Audio, I'm considering him scum because of the content of the posts he has made - and I've already gone on at length regarding my issues with the content of those posts. If you feel you don't have enough information for a call on him, I can respect that. However, this does call back to my comments on inconsistency of reasoning. Audio has, as of now, a total of 10 posts in this thread (not including confirm). Of those, he has a total of 4 posts that could be considered to have content (#211, #216, #218 and #231), 5 if you stretch the definition to include content to include his question to Mog in #130. Torg has posted little more than Audio has, with a total of 9 posts (not including his confirm) at the time that you provided your analysis of his posting, and has not offered much more in the way of content. Yet you were willing to call one neutral to town and cite his lack of content as a reason, yet locked in on the other as scum. This kind of inconsistency is exactly why I'm scumreading you right now - you're giving a reason that you've cited as making you uncertain most recently on Audio, and neutral to town on him previously, yet calling scum on Torg when the exact same reasons apply to him.
Quote from D_V »
The fact that you all think that within 5 posts of nothing/lurking you can determine someone to be scum is wacky. I wish I was as good as that.
Given your scumread on Torg, you clearly do seem to think you are as good as that.
@Rhand: Again, I apologize, but I don't want to put decisions out there without explaining my reasoning behind them (the exception being when I provide a full field review, as even I would have a hard time reading a wall of text the size that would require - hence my offer to elaborate on any reads I had on the rainbow wall, an offer which stands now if people want me to explain either a read as I had it there, or how that has changed since then).
@Mograppler: In order to determine how a person would react, you need to establish how the person thinks first - because there's got to be some form of internal logic that they follow. If I can't see a person's reasons, I can only judge by the actions - and if either the actions taken don't match up to the reasons given, or if there are no reasons given and the actions themselves seem to go against any logic that I can follow to a conclusion that is not to the detriment of town, I'm going to have to class the action as an anti-town one, and a scumtell. Emotions can be faked, feelings can be manipulated - understanding the logic a person uses in their own reasoning is what makes it possible to identify when that is happening, and why.
@EternalLurker: At the moment, I do see Audio as scum. I've already reiterated my reasoning previously for why I feel such - if you need me to, I'll provide the post numbers for reference. And I'm curious to what you're referring to regarding D_V - you're saying that you have out-of-game information which clears him for you. Are you permitted to share this information, or no (and if no, can you at least confirm whether Wheat is aware of the circumstances involved)?
@Folza: I do thank you for providing your reasoning on some of your leans. I notice that you have Juls, Olli***, Nago and Bloodmoon as town, and Torg and Mograppler as scum, but have not provided any reasoning for those. Please elaborate on your leads for these individuals. You also mention that you no longer have a reason to vote for EternalLurker because the town discussion/focus has switched gears. You do not provide your own opinions of Lurker, though - can you explain why you consider him a town read at the moment?
@JulsSkogs: Do you have any opinions regarding any of the other players at the moment? If D_V does flip scum, who would you recommend we look at next? What about if he flips town?
It's almost like I was directly asked to defend my RVS! Almost everything I said in those first couple of posts was answering a question that someone asked me, because I answer questions that people ask. I don't see why you're trying to emphasize my first couple of posts so hard.
-Barney Stinson
"Hodor"
-Hodor
You said a long time ago that you were gonna post something like Blues' rainbow wall to show your current Mafia/Town reads on everyone. Can we get that from you now? I'm only certain of your opinion on maybe four people in the game at the moment.
I'll address this and the next quote below. They tie into each other.
I bolded what seemed to be important.
Eternal, one question, where does he call out or mention mog as actively lurking? Because I ctrlf'ed it in his posts, and I can't find it.
D_V, minus (possibly this) and the potential defense of golli***, was there another thing he made up?
siiiiiigh
If Eternal can pull up where D_V calls out mog for lurking, then he has yet to lie. In which case, we are probably on the right track with D_V.
The main thing I'd suggest is waiting for the page to load fully, scrolling alllllll the way up, then scrolling back to the link before clicking it. Sometimes the MTGS header loads last and pushes down the rest of the page, such that when you think you're clicking on a link you're actually clicking in the wrong place. If that fixes the issue for you, I can keep using links, which would make me happier.
Problem solved. Note to self, Edge sucks and should not exist.
Town can start wagons and be wrong.
Jesus ******* christ.
You keep using this as an argument but it isn't one. You keep jumping ship every time you say something dumb and I call you out. That's a TERRIBLE reason for a wagon. I agree Folza wagon is bad. Yet when we replaced in people like Torg continued to read Folza as scum. And have continued to justify it. You're narrative is a lie. Never once did people say "We are just using this for a moment. Its a legit wagon, with legit (but bad) arguments for the folza wagon. Hell I'm still discussing it. You never admitted it was weak. EVER.
And you are white knighting him. He's even using your defense to defend himself now. That's literally a 100% white knighting.
Unvote Vote DV
Lets play big boy.
The entire reason the wagon started was to get some activity going. You can keep denying this all you want, but that just makes you look like scum or the laziest reader ever, and I'm still betting on the former, cuz I doubt you're that bad. (Although that self-vote does make you look "that bad", but unfortunately for you I don't accept derp-clears, which it appears that self-vote was an attempt to do.) Here is where I suggest starting a wagon, any wagon, to get a topic of conversation on which to focus the new players, and here is where nago turns that wagon over to Folza, instead of your slot as I had preferred.
I'm done reading the thread for you. From now on, when you say things that are just flat-out untrue, I'm simply going to quote them followed by the word "lie". Compensating for your illiteracy is not in my job description.
unvote vote D_V
@Wheat, there have been some jumps in votes, can we get a vote count. I lost track of them.
unvote vote D_V
Wheat, so that I know you'll see this one, a count please.
1) No Lynch, if we have lots of investigative Town roles who can do good work on Night One. We have no confirmation that's the case here, so that's not an option.
or
2) a quick lynch on the most blatantly scummy person, to limit the damage that scum can do with their information advantage.
Day Two is usually the longest day in my experience, as that gives Town the best balance of numerical advantage and information with which to work.
Regarding the vote count, only two people's votes have changed (you, and D_V twice). That's technically "five" on D_V, though it's really four.
You can literally get lynched tomorrow if the town has any sense.
Go read
Blue Eternal and IDK anyone else that joined that wagon. You're cherry picking.
I'll also say this once. Stop insulting. I decided to play nice, not mean.
I won't disappear but I started working on a cruise so my activity will drop.
...That is the entire story of how the Folza wagon came to be. There is nothing to cherry-pick there. What the **** are you even talking about?
This is fair; my bad. I play Mafia IRL with friends and we verbally abuse each other because that's what friends do, so when I'm in my Mafia mentality I'm not particularly kind. I'll see about fixing that.
You're still hilariously, horribly wrong, though.
Take Torg for example joined the Folza wagon for total band wagon purposes and then attacked me because others suggested it. Or Blue eclipse very much took the folza wagon as a real wagon. Hence all his questions to me about why I was reading the folza tells as null.
Your understanding of self votes is laughably noob, but that can be addressed another time.
You've misrepresented about everything you've talked about. You've said ridiculous things such as silence is acceptance which it isn't, which was a large argument you've made. You are so tunneled its not even funny, but you keep trying to tell others what correct play is, and saying that to me is a joke I've got years on you for playing this game.
Oh and my favorite thing, you keep saying that the Mog read is too much of a stretch yet a large large argument from you is that I was trying to stop a wagon. Something you still have yet to explain although I've asked you repeatedly where I ever said that I thought people being on that wagon were scum for being on that wagon.
Sigh.
Unvote
I think this is TvT -- which makes your self-vote and "lynch my accuser tomorrow" nauseatingly, embarrassingly poor play, cuz you'll just cause two Townie deaths.
But it's clear that I'm not gonna be able to explain that to you, because you think that having years of Mafia experience automagically makes you understand optimal gameplay, even to the extent of ignoring basic math in the process. News flash: experience does not equal skill.
I finally understand why your reads are so nonsensical: it's just the blind arrogance of an experienced-but-not-good player, assuming that he can rely on gut instinct "honed" by years of play, rather than actual evidence. Too bad instinct has absolutely no bearing in a forum setting because tells are incredibly easy to hide when you get to think about every post for minutes before you make it. But at least that makes you probably not scum, just utterly useless to me.
I'm not voting you, but I'm probably not taking anything you say seriously for the rest of the game, either.
Bock bock bock.
Still yet to explain the golli*** comments too.
Also this is perma being quoted to you respond to it.
how can someone be this bad
Nevermind. Looks like we're not gonna get anywhere unless this happens. I gave him a shot.
Vote: D_V
Also this is perma being quoted to you respond to it.
Also this is perma being quoted to you respond to it.
Also this is perma being quoted to you respond to it.
Also this is perma being quoted to you respond to it.
If you think you've answered you can quote yourself.
For the record too. You called me town then let me goad you back into voting me. Who's bad at mafia again?
Regarding players folding to pressure, it's worth noting that my concerns with Folza have been, and still are, not that he simply bows to pressure, but that he makes no attempt to defend himself at all. If the person is town, then to bow to pressure with no defense attempted directly harms town both because it would eliminate a townie and because it casts suspicion on the people voting on them. If the person is scum, however, then simply saying nothing and allowing us to lynch them - particularly early on like this - could help the scum team by depriving us of any clues that could be used to try and ferret out other scum. This is why I consider bowing to pressure with no attempt at a defense to be a scum tell. And do note, it's specifically the lack of a defense of any kind that I'm concerned with. And yes, this is the only attack on Folza - why do you think that I've moved towards other targets that seem to be going out of their way to paint themselves as scum?
Also, you mentioned Sunray bowing to pressure, but I'm curious as to where you saw that - Sunray was replaced out for you because he simply didn't post at all.
For you to vote for yourself has a couple of explanations that I can come up with - more of which lean towards scum than town.
(I acknowledge that the following section is WIFOM, but I believe it helps show why I feel his self-lynch is overwhelmingly a scum move, so please bear with me.)
It could be you trying to play chicken with the town, expecting us to back down for fear of lynching a townie, which I'd consider to be a scum move (as a townie would not take the risk of having themselves lynched). It could be scum trying to aggressively distance themselves from scum - which, if that were the case, would seem to paint Lurker as scum. It could be scum trying to fake distance from a townie in an effort to make us think they're scum. It could be a townie choosing to abandon their own scumreads solely for the purpose of making a point - in which case, you're playing against your win condition and might as well be scum. Or it could simply be that you somehow have deluded yourself into thinking this is actually a good play because you truly believe Lurker to be scum, in which case I'd argue you're probably still a hazard to the town by virtue of being able to make abysmal mistakes such as this - unless you've confirmed Lurker to be town, you're risking loss of not one but two days for the town by pushing us to lynch Lurker after you, which would put us at lylo if Lurker flips town. Or you could be a townie who doesn't care whether Lurker is town or not, and are trying to get yourself and him lynched to be spiteful, in which case lynching you on principle would still be the best choice (because if you're willing to risk losing the game for town out of spite, then town is better off without you).
(WIFOM ends here.)
Overall, there are far too many possibilities that lead to you either being scum, or being town but playing horribly enough that you'd be a detriment to the town regardless. The first option - that you're playing chicken with the town - is bolded because it's the one your own responses indicate, particularly in #294. That all said, you commented that Lurker's understanding of self-votes is 'laughably noob' and 'can be addressed another time'. Well, it can't - address it now. Point me to a case where a townie self-lynching proves to be beneficial to town, moreso than the same townie trying to continue defending themselves and root out other scum until the lynch threshold is hit. It may only be day 1, but if we can avoid a town lynch, then we need to do so - and right now, the onus is on you to prove that you're town either to those of us already voting you up, or to enough of the undecided people to ensure that you don't get lynched. Or if you are town and still think there's some gambit you've got going with your own lynch that will lead us to scum with certainty, we need to know about it - the best plan you can come up with means nothing if we don't know what we're supposed to do to make it happen, after all.
Torg was responding to questions or comments made directly at him about his votes. #65 was in response to my #48 (and Lurker echoing the sentiment in #49). Torg's #79 was a response to Nago's #69. #80 was Torg's response to Lurker's #67. And in both of those latter two cases, Torg was replying to direct concerns about why he moved his vote to Olli***.
Eternal brought up the idea of starting a wagon in order to get discussion focused on someone, and to try and get more information from someone. Originally, it was going to be on Sunray's slot - I agreed with that because I was, at the time, leaning scum on him. I was also, at the time, leaning scum on Folza, and had made that perfectly clear. I didn't have anything leaning me more towards one than the other, so I was fine with switching between them then.
That you're getting upset with Lurker qualifying statements with 'if you're town' is, IMO, another scumtell on you - you're getting upset because he's not willing to just back down and admit you as town, when the only times that the qualifier should not be present is when a person is confirmed one way or another. And given how many people are voting for you right now, I don't see how you could make the mistake of thinking we've confirmed you town.
You mentioned to Lurker that him calling you out on correct play is a joke because you've got years on him playing the game. Then answer my questions, and provide examples where applicable. Because all of your years playing the game mean nothing to me unless you can actually demonstrate that what you're doing is good play.
And regarding your comment in #300: I'd be inclined to say the one who's bad at Mafia is more likely to be the one who's playing in a way that multiple players are beginning to view him as a policy lynch.
@King Torg: The reason D_V is focused so much on your earlier posts is because you haven't given us much since then to expand on, I'd assume. Correct that, please.
@Bloodmoon0324: I suggest using Chrome. (But then, I always suggest using Chrome.)
@EternalLurker: I might be able to support a no-lynch in an investigative-heavy game, but only if there's no way we can narrow down a lynch on someone unlikely to be an investigative first.
And I'm fairly sure that D_V's argument regarding the Folza wagon is that you originally suggested the wagon on Sunray to start focusing people on a point of discussion. As I had Sunray as one of my top scumreads at the time, I agreed in hopes of getting enough pressure to pull Sunray out of lurk mode and get him to defend himself, but Nago disagreed before suggesting Folza as a target to put pressure on him. You and I agreed to switch to Folza (me because Folza was also one of my top scumreads at the time, and I didn't have anything to elevate one over the other - putting pressure on either was fine). So it's not quite as cut-and-dried as you said, but there's not much more there either.
If D_V does turn out to be town, regardless of how bad his current play is, it likely would still then be worth reviewing his posting to see if there's something he might have seen that we should be keeping in mind at least. If nothing else, it can then add to our own body of evidence.
That being said, I want to ask you this - if your vote were the only one that mattered, and the game would be decided solely on how he flips, would you still lynch him? Or no?
@Rhand: I was going to tell you to enjoy your cruise, but then I saw you mention that you're working on a cruise. So, enjoy your cruise, and try not to work too hard! (I'd much rather work on a cruise than have the call center job I have now, I think.) And if you do get the chance, I hope you can provide a bit more input, not just on the D_V situation, but in general!
Uhh
No.
Folza isn't an experienced enough player to think that through. That's evident. He isn't trying to deny the town interactions.
Sunray said gg smile face. That seemed like they were done pretty quickly.
Ya'll need to get your heads out of your ass and realize self vote doesn't equal self lynch.
Trigger happy mafia is a game I've self voted before to much effect. Its not a newb play. The fact that you all think it is. Well that's noob.
Some of you wish there was shade.
Votecount!
D_V - 4 (Rhand, BluesEclipse, Bloodmoon0324, EternalLurker)
EternalLurker - 1 (Folza)
Folza - 2 (nagobcnik, Mograppler)
fuggingolli*** - 2 (King Torg, JulsSkogs)
King Torg - 1 (D_V)
nagobcnik - 1 (fuggingolli***)
Not Voting - 1 (AudioTsunami)
Oh no.
You misunderstand me greatly here. Its not that he isn't town reading me. Its that he keeps adding qualifying statements such as this. I think he knows I'm town and thus keeps adding these statements. Its a way for him to later play it off as an oops mislynch.
Unvote
Ehhh I outed myself for what I was doing here.
Its not going to work as well because of all of the lurking this game anyways.
Umm mm.
Ok I'll hit the Eternal Lurker thing now.
Eternal has attempted to set me up as defending golli***. I'm not certain if hes town or not after rereading some of it. He is approaching the game as if he established that I did and then building off of that such as 252. He said "I've made many posts about the golli*** thing" and its true he has. But hes bad enough at this game to not realize hes never set up a connection. I've never once suspected anyone for being on the golli*** wagon. I've never said anyone was scum for being on the wagon. I've never attacked anyone for being on the wagon.
Frankly I'm uncertain what the case is on me. Eternal is going to insult my ability to understand English here. Because that's the only trick hes got.
I'm a little baffled how a player sees my jump from Mograppler to others as a stretch, but sees their own even *****tier jump to be good. And is so certain about it. That kind of pretentiousness is a whole new level specifically from someone so new and bad that they talk with such self righteousness. I might **** around with my friends pretty hard myself but I would never attempt to insult as he claims he does with his friends in defense of his joke of attacks. Its petty its a poor way to argue and hes not even right. And hes ignoring when others are pointing that out and like a child going la la la I'm right.
Take that and talk about how town should be open to new information. Eternals basically ignored everything I've said about Trog and about the scum tells from Mograppler such as voting wheat a massive scum tell.
I'm being tunnled on. Its a bad play. And to have others tell me my play is bad is a joke. You guys don't know what bad play is that's evident. If one player gets mislynched is it their fault of the 8 other townies that did ***** and lynched them? Who's the bad player? Maybe instead of blaming others for your own bad play of lynching a townie you should get good, and not lynch them. Its text book Dunning Kruger effect. Now I'm not saying its all on the town either if that player got lynched maybe they did something wrong as well, but its not all them.
I don't know how to help you guys. You've got one really active player that perma flames. You've got blue eclipse who is clearly new, but trying and reads as town for such. And the rest with like less than 30 posts.
You know what I feel very confident about my Mog read and King read.
Vote King
You say that self-vote doesn't mean self-lynch. Yet, by the rules of the game, votes lead to lynch - especially in this game, where a deadline lynch will occur on the person with the most votes regardless of whether they reach the majority threshold or not. So self-voting can very well mean self-lynch. Furthermore, you've directly expressed through your posts that you were trying to play chicken with the voting block set against you, and the town as a whole. While I thank you for ending the farce that was your self-vote, I still have to ask why you think that, as town, voting for yourself could ever be considered anything but an anti-town move.
You talk about how we are 'noob'. You talk about how for us to complain about your bad play is a joke, and we don't know what bad play is. You tell us to 'get good'. Yet if you see us as such, you are part of the problem rather than the solution - when directly asked to explain how some of the moves you're defending are anything but anti-town, you simply throw out the 'noob' counter instead of explaining the logic or providing examples. But what I'm seeing from you is behavior, and the defense of behaviors, that I cannot find any reasoning for that is not anti-town - and again, I can only judge by actions, not by your supposed experience. So give me a reason for these actions, and I'll have a reason to reconsider where I stand on your alignment as well. You're right that we have too many people who still seem to be lurking, and some of them have outstanding questions that I'm waiting for answers on (I'm looking at you in particular, AudioTsunami). But that doesn't mean the questions directed at you aren't also worth answering. So answer them - if you are town, then fill in those gaps in my logic, because I can't come to that conclusion when the only logical reasons I see for your actions are pointing to anti-town motives.
@Wheat_Grinder: Could you please throw a prod in Nago's general direction? (Everyone else has at least posted within 72 hours, as of this post.) Thanks!
I'd stress anti town isn't scum. IDK any other way to put that to make sense with what you're saying. I'd more classify it as not pro town. Which IDK its just a null tell. Which is what I'm trying to stress. Its sort of not towny, but its not a scum tell. I don't know any other way to phrase this. Just because someone acts against what you perceive as the interest of the town doesn't mean that they are scum. Lets not get further in to it than that because we could go really down the rabbit hole.
Its the same thing with me self voting. Its not exactly pro-town, but its not scummy. I've seen plenty of players vote themselves when frustrated or as I use it typically which is to generate some sort read. I've also seen scum implode and vote themselves.
That's what I'm trying to get across as new. You're reading too deep into this I feel. Its not a behavior tell really. Neither folding nor me self voting. Maybe you can add it with other behavior to make it so, but on its own its null. Lurking is anti-town, but I've seen plenty of games with town lurking. Does this make them scum? No. Their town. Does this mean they are playing bad? Not really. A good player can get reads off of very little and roll with it.
I guess the best way for me to try and explain this is. Playing pro-town is playing "optimally" if you will. Nobody plays optimally. Ever. So everyone does things that are not pro-town.
You talk about behavior. But think about it. I'm a very experienced player and when I say my scum game is good its good. I rarely lose as scum. It becomes WIFOM but am I really going to play this way as scum? You're thinking too small. Wheres my end game?
Take a step back and look at who is on my wagon.
You have Eternal with making up things about me attacking a wagon I never attacked. You've said as much I think. You have bloodmoon who also said that. Yet called me scum? For what reason?
And you have Rhand.
What are you reading as a scum tell from me?
You're equating anti-town to scum. Which is just so silly to me.
I mean just think about it.
A wagon starts a player joins it, says they had their doubts but didn't want to shake the game up.
That's anti-town.
The same player instead attacks the player leading the wagon who was town and leads to their lynch.
That's anti-town.
The same player instead diverts the towns attention to another player who happens to be town.
That's anti-town.
The same player instead diverts the towns attention to another player who happens to be scum.
But diverted the player they diverted from is scum too.
That's anti-town.
And yet I can make arguments for each of these being pro-town as well.
Welcome to mafia. Nothing is black and white. Its a frustration of mine because I feel that almost any behavior can be argued either way.
Audio seems...
Townish?
Does a scum member post this?
I think not. Hes got legitimate concerns. Hell its some of my concerns with Eternal as well. I'm not the only one who has a problem with how pretentious he is.
At the end I'll say this I think you're splitting hairs. I think you're trying to solve the game but focusing way to much on micro things that don't matter. You're focusing on the well folding to pressure isn't pro-town. And my response is Who the **** cares? Is it a scum move? Does it make him scum? Then lets move the on and find scum.
And I'm happy to go over what I'm seeing as scumtells on you.
I've already explained my concerns regarding your self-vote, so I don't believe there's anything more to be gained from beating that dead horse unless you'd like to continue the discussion with more information.
The first is that in #177, your argument for Mog is built on two things. I understand the concerns regarding his no-lynch suggestion initially. But the other reason you cited is that he is lurking in plain sight - posting infrequently, and providing little to no actual content. Yet, within the same post, you cited Folza as seeming town, and immediately after in #188, you said that he hasn't said anything of merit, which you would consider as being town from an experienced player and only neutral from a new player. You followed this up in #234 where you cited both Audio as neutral to town and explicitly stated that there's not a lot of content from their posts. So there's now three players who you're reading as town based on low posting and a lack of content provided, when your very first scum read was based in large part off of a player's low posting and lack of content. That you've made such duplicitous claims is a scumtell to me.
In #246, I expressed my concern about why you voted Torg over Lurker when you'd previously cited far more of your own scumtells on Lurker than on Torg. You responded to other concerns of mine (re: Folza) in #250, but failed to even reference this. AudioTsunami (who I already have a scumread on) posts in #266 with nothing more than a comment for you to 'get mog later, get EL now', immediately before I reiterate my own questions regarding the subject in #267. In #269, you reply that you felt you'd found the scumteam - Lurker, Torg and Mog - and didn't care who you lynched first. But after responding to some other concerns, you then switch your vote to Lurker, suggesting that Torg might be town. If you didn't care who you lynch first, as you cited, then you wouldn't have seen a reason to change the vote based on my questions - and the timing of the vote being immediately after Audio's post to go after Lurker is extremely suspect. That is also a scumtell to me, as it seems like you're trying to swing to Lurker at Audio's direction, and coming up with a flimsy justification for doing so by suddenly finding a reason to read Torg as town.
The fact that you claimed you suddenly see Torg as town in that post, and yet still continued to push him as part of the scumteam in future posts (right up to the recent vote change in #305) raises red flags for me - it seems as though you're trying to adjust your claimed reads to better target whoever you want to get focus on at the time. That you kept your vote off of Lurker (when revoting after removing the self-vote) without any particular indication of why, or any thought that you consider him more likely to be town, raises more of the same flags, and I also noticed the same flip-flopping behavior regarding Rhand in #204 (where you cite him as scum with no explanation) and #234 (where you cite him as town with no explanation). Flip-flopping on several people, with no reasoning or indications of why given? Once is random chance, twice is coincidence, more than that is a pattern, and this pattern does not paint you in a positive light either.
Starting with #292, you started mentioning your greater experience in many of your posts as if it was support for your argument, and likewise started using the 'noob' card to discredit opposing arguments. Instead of pointing out actual logic, you try to sway other players with the idea that you are playing the game right and the rest of us are playing it wrong. That you're resorting to those kinds of attacks is a scumtell to me as well, since it suggests that you're running out of other arguments to use based on logic and posts.
And lastly, your question regarding the post quoted from Audio. I absolutely could see a scum member posting this. I've already explained why it is that his first argument falls flat - Audio was equating Lurker's posts in #56 and #61 as responses to the exact same comments, which they were not (yes, both referenced - in part - the same post, but #56 was a joke played off of a single comment within the post, #61 was a serious response addressing both another part of the initial post being responded to and a follow-up made afterwards), and comments that the only reason for a follow-up would be to supersede suspicion. These comments could easily be made by Audio with the intent of drawing that exact suspicion onto Lurker, and I believe I've already covered my counterpoints to the arguments themselves in detail. He then goes on to comment that Lurker refused to address his point in #214, writing it off as scum or tunneling. Which is an entirely valid argument from Lurker given the following from Audio's #211: If you have a way of defining this as not tunneling, then I'd like to hear it, but Lurker is perfectly justified in this, as Audio's own comments have left the onus on him to persuade others to follow his lead. If Audio is scum, this would be a perfect comment to undercut Lurker's position, while if he's town it just strikes me as a petulant response to Lurker acknowledging that Audio won't be swayed by any arguments. The next comment is clearly sarcastic, but would serve scum well as another attack on Lurker's previous WIFOM-laden post #61. His final portion of the comment, I would easily argue is more beneficial to scum!Audio than town!Audio, as Audio himself is a lurker (with a total of 10 posts across the thread thus far). He's trying to direct us away from scum, which would suit him quite well as scum, while a town player would be better served by looking at all possibilities, both among actives and inactives.
As always, I'm quite happy to discuss any of my points further if you wish to offer any counterpoints or need further details provided.
@Wheat_Grinder: I also noticed that in the previous votecount, you didn't reference D_V's vote on himself. Could you please confirm whether this was simply due to a syntax error in his vote (meaning the software couldn't parse it), or because you are not allowing self-votes and as a result did not count it? Thank you.
I disagree with the anti-town = scum. I've explained it. You're few is too simplistic. And explains quite a bit of the rest of the differing. You keep ignoring the vast majority of what I'm saying here. Anti-town doesn't equate to scum. You can't just make it so. I've shown you ample examples of this.
Mog is totally different than any of the other lurkers. I accused him of lurking in plain sight. Hes got one of the higher post counts in the game
Take into account this
This is his reason for voting Mystic. Which is in response to Eternal who said Mystic disappeared after being called scum. That's the only reason hes scum reading Mystic.
Post 55 is the only other thing that he says about mystic.
And that's really his only opinions in the entire game. There isn't much else posted by them. That's extremely different than not posting at all. Its just floating. At least other players can be marked off as IRL problems or losing interest or deciding forum mafia isn't for them, but this is active posting but literally about nothing. Its scummy.
Plus my claim wasn't “About a players low post count” its about lack of content in such a LARGE post count.
I can't help you with the second part. Votes are votes. I vote as I want as I see fit. Your argument also folds in on itself. You're right I didn't care which one I lynched first. So, why would it mater if I swapped my vote? It doesn't mater as long as it happens. Like what are you saying here?
I'm swapping my reads around based on the information given to me. King Torg made two other posts since I made that post and I changed my mind. Happens same with Rhand, fun fact I might have put him on my scum list to see reactions. I'll give you some advice since you seem to be going down this path. Some players consider consistency to be a town tell and thus not being consistent a scum tell. I don't I think consistency is really easy to fake.
You misunderstand me. I really didn't feel like typing this much to explain such basic concepts. I'm not trying to be dismissive its just a waste of time. Me spending so much time for example trying to explain that “anti-town does not equate to scum” is basic to me. Its a boring conversation. I know I'm right.
Pffft I don't know about Audio
I really need more there.
I'm unwilling to really commit to anything with so little to work with. Just like with Folza. The fact that you all think that within 5 posts of nothing/lurking you can determine someone to be scum is wacky. I wish I was as good as that.
I'll try to read them in the course of the day inbetween arrivals.
This is a game where you have to go based what you think the reasons that people do certain things. Everything can be considered townie or scummy. It all depends on how you think would react in a certain situation. You can not play based purely on logic. Then experienced players would just do what was "statistically beneficial the the town" and you would get nowhere. You have to play some on emotions. In regards to my vote on mystic, I have played a couple games IRL where a new player who is mafia, gives a tell, thinks they are screwed because someone accused them, and they pretty much do what mystic did.
I will look at prods sometime later today.
It's coming from a parsing error.
D_V: Please revote.
Possibly not. I've come to the conclusion that he's more likely terrible Town than terrible scum. But he's still scummier than anyone else on my radar at the moment, so unless someone rises higher he's still my choice of Day One lynch in case I'm wrong. The only other person who I'm even vaguely considering lynching at the moment is Rhand, but between the two of them it's not really close right now.
Also, do you really see Audio as scum? He just seems like a hopelessly tunneled Townie to me, and now worse off because he sees justification for it from D_V. Bad play, but easier to excuse since he's not coupling it with arrogant bull***** about years of apparently-useless experience.
Unvote
wouldn't be proper for me to get into the reasons right now, but out-of-game incidents have basically confirmed D_V as Town so far as I'm concerned
which is a really *****ty way for this to go down, and the person who's responsible knows who (s)he is and should feel bad
but it also wouldn't be a proper Town play for me to ignore that information, soooo...unvoting and I'll let y'all decide where to go from there
I was out of town this weekend to help a friend move, and I was still in the process of re-reading at that time (around the middle of page 5). I see this morning that there has been plenty of discussion, especially by BluesEclipse and D_V about players folding to pressure. I've certainly still not gotten comfortable with this style of play (text-based), which is why I have been having sporadic posting and a lack of genuine activity. However, after some of my re-reading I finally wanted to share my opinion general opinion of all other players, as of the time of this post:
JulsSkogs
Lean: Town
Reasoning:
King Torg
Lean: Scummy
Reasoning:
Rhand
Lean: Neutral
Reasoning: Not enough posts or information to go on, but he has a desire to remain active even while on vacation (and recently posted #311), which I respect.
AudioTsunami
Lean: Netural/Scummy
Reasoning: Not enough information or posts. Can't determine if lurking, inactive, or scum and not wanting to post out of fear of his works/statements getting twisted by the Town.
fuggingolli***
Lean: Town
Reasoning:
nagobcnik
Lean: Town
Reasoning:
EternalLurker
Lean: Town
Reasoning: In my last post I unvoted for EternalLurker because my general reason for voting for him in the first place was unjustified (I voted for him because he voted for me). Now that Town discussion/focus has switched gears, I no longer have a reason to vote for EternalLurker. Will wait an see how my opinions change as the day proceeds.
Mograppler
Lean: Scummy
Reasoning:
BluesEclipse
Lean: Town
Reasoning: It seems he has a lot of experience with Mafia, has an opinion of every aspect of the game (including refrencing lines of thinking I wouldn't have even thought up (such as post #301). I respect your intelligence and attitude towards the game, and it seems like you are trying to get a read on everyone now, and not just specifically targeting me, although at points that targeting was justified.
D_V
Lean: Scummy
Reasoning: I don't know what kind of information EternalLurker has on you out-of-game, but in-game, the inconsistencies you have posted on page 6 and 7, in my opinion, justify the scum lean I have on you. I find some of your statements as far fetched as Eternal and Blues do. As well, there seems to already be a consensus about voting for you.
Bloodmoon0324
Lean: Town
Reasoning:
I will have to go back and re-read the reasoning behind the Town switching from voting for myself to voting for D_V. Once I have more information on that matter I will make another post.
Voting clarification:
Unvote Vote: D_V
Regardless of the statements EternalLurker has made in post #315, statements D_V has made on pages 6 and 7 in his discussions with Blues and Eternal are so far-fetched, I cannot justify a vote for anyone more than I can for D_V. I had already intended to write a post marking an FOS and vote on MysticSunray for lurking, but it seems that D_V has justified a vote for himself due to inconsistency.
After reading through the past like two and a half pages, this about sums up my feelings (and in turn has saved me from having to write a big post about it myself, so thanks Folza!
Unvote
Vote: D_V
UW Control
UWR Geist
UWR Control
You argue that anti-town does not equate to scum. I'm contending that selecting an anti-town course of action, when courses of action are available that would be more obviously beneficial to the town, is absolutely a scumtell. Acting based on available information in a way that you believe to be supportive of the town is not in itself anti-town, but continuing to pursue such a course of action when additional information has been provided that shows you to be acting to the town's detriment is. I can attribute the initial mistakes to ignorance, but if someone continues to make those same mistakes after being presented with reasoning for why the behavior is to the town's detriment, I have to consider malice, either in their choice to ignore the information provided or in acknowledging the information and still choosing to act in a way that is clearly to the detriment of the town.
I do thank you for providing your other points of concern regarding Mog, and elaborating on why you considered his pattern of posting without providing content different from that of others. I'm still uncertain how you came to the neutral-to-town lean on the others mentioned who were posting infrequently and without content, as I can't reconcile that as a townie behavior (neutral at best), and I feel that lurkers in general need to be considered just as much as the more active players to ensure that they don't slip through the cracks.
Regarding your choice to lynch Lurker when you did, the concern is this: you said you felt that it didn't matter which one you lynched first, in both of your previous responses to me regarding the matter. But you then changed the vote anyway, without providing any indication of why. It was either an effort to placate me by providing an action with no reasoning behind it (when I was asking for the reasoning behind your previous action instead), a change in response to Audio's comment for you to get Lurker (which would be, IMO, a scummy move since you'd be changing based off of a player that already seems scummy, with no real impetus from him to change your mind besides 'let's get lurker'), a change made with reasoning that you refused to provide (in which case your comment to me just blowing off the vote on Torg over Lurker would be questionable, since if you have reasoning for the change it's not just voting one over the other), or a change made with no reasoning whatsoever (which would be scummy as well, as it would indicate you're just trying to push towards whoever you feel you can get traction on at the time).
You are correct that you have the right to vote as you see fit, and to swap reads around. However, when you aren't sharing your own reasoning for those reads, I can only act based on what I'm seeing from you - and that's a developing pattern of flip-flopping on reads and votes alike. And as for saying consistency is not a town tell because it's easy to fake... consistency of action is easy to fake. Consistency of thought and logic, far less so. This is why I ask for reasoning behind these actions - even if I don't agree, and even if it leads to frequent changes in your opinions, it can help me to see that you've got a clear pattern of thought, that there is some logic that you're following. If the reasoning doesn't hold up based on what's provided in the topic, then it's a scumtell for me - but at the same time, withholding that reasoning makes it seem like you've got something to hide as well. Having this information also allows me to check it against reasoning for later actions, to ensure that the logic is consistent - as scum are generally required to manufacture reasons why a townie would instead be scum, the reasoning would not be as internally consistent (meaning that they would have to try and twist things more and more in order to justify 'scumtells' they are calling on townies they want to have lynched).
And I understand that you may feel some things are obvious, given your experience. But you said yourself that you believe you have more experience than most of the players in this game - so whether you know you're right or not, whether it's boring to you or not, when less experienced players ask you to explain these concepts, you really should consider doing so to ensure that they can understand.
As for Audio, I'm considering him scum because of the content of the posts he has made - and I've already gone on at length regarding my issues with the content of those posts. If you feel you don't have enough information for a call on him, I can respect that. However, this does call back to my comments on inconsistency of reasoning. Audio has, as of now, a total of 10 posts in this thread (not including confirm). Of those, he has a total of 4 posts that could be considered to have content (#211, #216, #218 and #231), 5 if you stretch the definition to include content to include his question to Mog in #130. Torg has posted little more than Audio has, with a total of 9 posts (not including his confirm) at the time that you provided your analysis of his posting, and has not offered much more in the way of content. Yet you were willing to call one neutral to town and cite his lack of content as a reason, yet locked in on the other as scum. This kind of inconsistency is exactly why I'm scumreading you right now - you're giving a reason that you've cited as making you uncertain most recently on Audio, and neutral to town on him previously, yet calling scum on Torg when the exact same reasons apply to him. Given your scumread on Torg, you clearly do seem to think you are as good as that.
@Rhand: Again, I apologize, but I don't want to put decisions out there without explaining my reasoning behind them (the exception being when I provide a full field review, as even I would have a hard time reading a wall of text the size that would require - hence my offer to elaborate on any reads I had on the rainbow wall, an offer which stands now if people want me to explain either a read as I had it there, or how that has changed since then).
@Mograppler: In order to determine how a person would react, you need to establish how the person thinks first - because there's got to be some form of internal logic that they follow. If I can't see a person's reasons, I can only judge by the actions - and if either the actions taken don't match up to the reasons given, or if there are no reasons given and the actions themselves seem to go against any logic that I can follow to a conclusion that is not to the detriment of town, I'm going to have to class the action as an anti-town one, and a scumtell. Emotions can be faked, feelings can be manipulated - understanding the logic a person uses in their own reasoning is what makes it possible to identify when that is happening, and why.
@EternalLurker: At the moment, I do see Audio as scum. I've already reiterated my reasoning previously for why I feel such - if you need me to, I'll provide the post numbers for reference. And I'm curious to what you're referring to regarding D_V - you're saying that you have out-of-game information which clears him for you. Are you permitted to share this information, or no (and if no, can you at least confirm whether Wheat is aware of the circumstances involved)?
@Folza: I do thank you for providing your reasoning on some of your leans. I notice that you have Juls, Olli***, Nago and Bloodmoon as town, and Torg and Mograppler as scum, but have not provided any reasoning for those. Please elaborate on your leads for these individuals. You also mention that you no longer have a reason to vote for EternalLurker because the town discussion/focus has switched gears. You do not provide your own opinions of Lurker, though - can you explain why you consider him a town read at the moment?
@JulsSkogs: Do you have any opinions regarding any of the other players at the moment? If D_V does flip scum, who would you recommend we look at next? What about if he flips town?
CLEARLY SCUM, CREAKING THE RULES AND *****
/s
UW Control
UWR Geist
UWR Control