Actually, I feel like the last few posts do also kind of serve as a bottle example of my issue with you this game. I felt like I was trying to have a conversation and learn something, and I felt like you were making up things and trying to shout at me until I'd stop.
Would telling you it was hyperbole have made you de-tunnel? Because someone else did say it. It was obvious to them.
Would you have thought me to be town suddenly, if I said it was hyperbole? Like whoa everybody, nobody lynch Kami ever she's obv town hyperboling all over me? Yay Thor/Kami townblock? You don't know that because you never paid any attention to all my other posts. Maybe they were bleeding town, maybe they were oozing scum. You had no idea, because you totally ignored all my other input outside of that one post.
Do people behave the same when you (1) annoy them and they're trying to ignore you or (2) are having positive interactions with you? Is that something you'd be willing to take into consideration when judging people's alignments based on the interactions you have with them?
When other players told you that you were tunneling, did you de-tunnel?
When other players told you it was obvious hyperbole, did you de-tunnel?
When I told you that you were tunneling, did you de-tunnel?
When other players told you that your beef with me was borne of wounded pride and a personal slight, and didn't care one bit about it, did you de-tunnel?
When you were never nightkilled, did it occur to you that your tunnel might have been helpful to the scum, and did you de-tunnel?
There was nothing, nothing to get you out of that tunnel over a single post on page 2, that lasted an entire game.
As a townie, did you think that your tunnel could look town to me?
As a townie, did you think I have left you alive had I been scum? Never mind the WIFOM; do you think I would have left you alive?
Well...as usual, you didn't answer my questions. I'd still like those answered. To answer yours;
I don't think you ever did tell me it was hyperbole, but, no, that would't have sold me - I would have wanted you to tell me why you did what you did.
I did pay attention to your posts - I will agree I didn't find them to be bleeding town, but then a number of other players also didn't get that off you, so I'm not sure that's an issue with me alone.
I don't think people behave the same when they are annoyed - that said, I'm not sure how what I did was any more annoying than refusing to answer a question. Are you saying you started playing anti-town and refused to answer my questions because I was annoying? How was I annoying *prior* to getting bent out of shape that you were ignoring my questions? I don't think that timeline plays out. As far as the second part, I don't really get the question here - you're asking me if I would have townish vibes if someone was interacting positively with me? I would say, generally, yes, I do that. Though the interactions would need to feel like scumhunting more than just empty friendliness.
When other players told me I was tunneling I discussed what I was doing with them - none disagreed.
I don't think any other player told me it was obvious hyperbole, so no, I didn't react to that.
When you told me I was tunneling I asked you to answer my questions - you then refused to. I'm not sure why you thought that would end the tunnel. It certainly didn't help my situation.
Which player told me my issue was borne of hurt pride and personal slight? I don't think this ever happened.
Scum also didn't NK dC who tunneled on scum Az all game - I find this to be a false concept.
There might have been something to get me out, if you had defended your actions and answered my questions - it certainly had worked in the past when you had done that method.
As a townie I have town read and scum read people who tunneled. I can see where your scum read on me came from, I guess you cannot see where mine on you came from. I'm not sure what that says. But, yes, I understand, as town, your scum read on me - I do disagree with how you dealt with it once you didn't have a scum read on me. Frankly, as town I disagree with how you dealt with it when it was a scum read, but you were trying to lynch me, and in a general sense that is what you do as town to scum reads.
I don't have a strong opinion on your NK meta, I have often claimed in this game that I had no clear idea of your meta. I suppose from the way this is phrased the answer is 'no' but if you had asked me that during the game I wouldn't have had that as an answer - I have, as scum, both killed and not killed people tunneling me for various reasons. I would have supposed you would do the same.
I never answered your question - because it was such obvious hyperbole that I thought your persistence about something this painfully evident meant that you were scum.
1. Why, in a different game, did you choose to address it but not this time?
2. Why didn't you address it during the period you claimed to be town reading me, as a means of helping de-tunnel the tunneled town?
Just as a head's up, I just edited the above post. Am I blind, or did it not make an alert note about it?
Or maybe we turned off that system after the game ended?
That's an issue as far as Mafia games on this board goes.
Like, as far as the new evidence thing - I would note that my core question 'why did you lie, and why did you take my negative reaction to the lie as a scumtell?' was, to even this moment of the game - was never answered by you. You literally just wouldn't respond to that - that felt scummy to me. Town should have had a reasoning to their lie purpose, and certainly should have been able to justify why they found someone scummy for reacting negatively to a lie.
I doubt you'll take advice from me, but I think your downfall is your complete inability to change your mind in the face of new evidence. I was trying to point out to you that you should be looking at other things in the game, but you pretty much refused to. The game was reduced to a single post: DGB said she could read me and that was a lie. Other than that one post, there was virtually no game worthy of notice, and I posted nothing else, either. Nothing counted but that one post.
Why did you avoid talking with me about my issue during the game like you did in the SoIaF game?
I never changed my mind because, in my opinion, I never got the new evidence. I never got any further evidence at all, I was left at the end of a road wanting to know what the path looked like, and you seemed to lack any desire to bring a light around.
I also will admit I disagree that I had a single point, though will agree I was strongly focused on my case on you - but as I said earlier, I can't think of an important subject that I didn't address in the game.
With Tammy, it's failure to know it's time to disengage. It's fine to create reactions; you did just that. But her reaction was that of frustrated town. Once you make this judgement, you can say: OK you're town never mind. Or if after she reacts, you still can't read her... there is no point getting her to continue with that same reaction, except deeper and more extreme. You have to let go. There was nothing to be gained by making Tammy even more miserable. Why persist?
I persisted because of two reasons;
1. What I had seen so far felt easy to fake - I could certainly fake that level of reaction.
2. The other game I had seen the tell used, her reaction had been different - and that was the type of reaction I was looking for.
To a minor extent the 'I don't want to give you a reaction' commentary from her also felt like something scum would say as an 'out' from the tell.
@Tammy - also, I will admit "people digging in their heels due to Thor's style" doesn't quite sell me on a justification for the issues I thought I was expressing. I will agree I have a style that attempts to force reactions - but I disagree that my style is so poisonous that people need to start playing anti-town as a 'up yers' to me.
@dC - mildly in my defense, I didn't townread Az until the final day, Not the best time to do it, but I was actually the MS player supporting that lynch for a substantial part of the day - as I recall my support even got me some heat Day 1 for how I did it. I'll agree my reads on the last day were useless...but you guys mostly all lurked and left me with Az who was putting in effort and I eventually equated the effort and the emotions I was getting with a townish vibe. Don't leave town alone with scum is a mantra I always teach Newbies in Newbie games.
@Tammy - I don't think I ever claimed to be able to read your emotions, and even when you were discussing that with me you were pointing out how I had little to no experience with your emotion tells and I openly agreed with you on that, though said I was attempting to understand it.
I hear you talking, Az, but note that really you appear to be debating the fine art of telling anti-town play from pro-scum play, which is, to my mind, one of the most difficult and fine lines to perceive in the game. I can agree I should have done it better in this game, if that's your point. But I will stand by my originally stated point of 'if that's what went wrong, I don't think the 'blame Thor' stance is a valid one as far as this game goes' which is what I was questioning when people originally indicated that I had torpedoed town somehow more than anyone else.
@DGB - I am trying to understand the stance of other people, I am not trying to explain why you are scum. Please allow me to try to improve myself for next game - I have already agreed to avoid you like the plague in the future - feel free to not read my posts.
It was an exaggeration insomuch as what she said was absolutely not true and used weird logic to justify itself.
The alignment tell was not in the lie though, the alignment tell was in that she wouldn't talk about the lie and used me reacting negatively towards her for lying as a scumtell and in that she had no reason to lie about it.
I think "lynch all liars" is bunk. Every piece of evidence has a given weight, and if concentrate on one piece of evidence too heavily, or believe that a given activity can *always* or *only* or *most readily* be explained by a scum alignment, it can lock you into a tunnel.
I mean, it's not inconceivable for townies to lie, even when they shouldn't. Townies misplay or exaggerate or run their mouths off all the time. The key factor is figuring out why they're behaving the way they're behaving, and what alignment(s) it best fits under. In Kami's case, I think she was so tilted and upset with you, that refusing to admit fault was not at all an unexpected human reaction. I'd go so far as to say that it would take a person with uncommon self-control and honesty to admit fault in that spat, with the argument between you becoming as polarized as it did.
You're more than smart enough to figure that out, but you convinced yourself that you didn't need to think it through, that you could take the mental shortcut to "lying = scum". That was where you misstepped, I think.
Under a standpoint that believes in classical tells like anti-town actions, and lying, Kami was guilty as sin.
Under an analysis that looked at tone and motivation, I think her true alignment was being broadcast pretty clearly. Given a choice between those two styles of analysis, I'll pick the latter every time.
You call it a mental shortcut - okay. But, as shown, i actually broke down and presented my thoughts of 'here is why she'd do it as town, and here is why she'd do it as scum' and came up with nothing to justify it for town - I then asked her.
And she didn't choose to respond.
And then I tunneled.
Why was that a lazy or poor move on my part in your opinion?
FWIW, Thor, a large portion of why I was willing to vote her over Az, aside from the buddying between the two, was your own argument against her - if it makes you feel any better.
It does - I'm just curious about the thought process of the people suggesting that what I did was, in effect, the doom of the town. I find that a silly and unsupportable stance to take and find my play to have bad elements, but suggest I am hardly alone in that as I think many people played poorly in this game, and also that as far as my issue with Kami goes, though I find most of the blame on her end and a lesser amount on mine, I am chagrined that multiple people seem to find her somehow blameless, which is what I'm trying to figure out. She lied, then refused to discuss it - that's bad play in my book. Now, maybe other people can disagree it's a scum case...okay, I disagree, but...even if it's not a total scum case people should have been willing to talk to me about it instead of acting like what she did was fine. unless people are looking to argue that it *is* fine in which case I would benefit from having it explained as to 'why' it is fine, because I massively disagree with every belief I have about how the game should be played.
I mean, I could start lying and refusing to discuss it if that's what town play is nowadays - but people need to talk me through that. I missed the memo.
@Thor: Maybe I'm putting too much responsibility for the town's loss on you. But I have a high opinion of your play in general, and you just got stuck in some complete nonsense this game. Like you literally did not look at anything all game other than DGB, even when everyone else that was active was declaring DBG town.
First off, I looked at and commented on *many* things. I personally found it annoying how people never seemed to notice nor care. Heck, look at my play this game and find a situation that I *didn't* comment on. I dare you - I bet I can link you to my comment with ease. I did FOCUS on Kami, but that's because I wanted to lynch her. That is different than a mindless tunnel in my opinion.
I also am bothered that people feel I got "caught up in nonesense" this gmae. i waas hearing that for DAYS and it felt like a scum story that people decided to believe with no actual basis. Here's what I understood the situation to be;
1. Kami lied about meta with me to push my lynch (unless you care to buy her "100%" accuracy story about me...and if you do...well...say so)
2. I called her on the lie.
3. She defended the lie.
4. I called her scum.
5. She said I was scum for pushing that angle.
6. I said that made no sense
7. She stopped talking about it.
8. I kept calling her scum, and kept pointing out how she was evading the topic.
9. People called me "caught in nonsense"
10. Probably somewhere in there she dropped in her 'caught for the wrong reasons' malarky just to really make my day. Oh, and I wasn't caught for the wrong reasons - shock.
Look...if it was a reaction test - then as shown in a game I linked, she as town, lied, and I called her on it, she got a reaction from me, admitted it was a lie - AND I DROPPED THE POINT.
In this game, she lied, and then evaded discussing the thy or wherefore of the lie (which I thought made no town sense to lie about - because the only reaction you could get was negative...and apparently she decided that equaled scum). When someone lies in a game of mafia, does so to push a case on someone, and lacks any valid reaction reasoning, and then is shady about admitting they did it or discussing why they did it - then I am going to think that person is scum.
That is just an absolute tell in my mind.
I have no idea why anyone else saw it differently, or why they thought my stance was unusual.
I would love commentary on this - because I literally feel like all of you are talking absolute CRAZY when you suggest I was being unreasonable. Please, clue me in here, where is my logic flawed, or where did I fail to convey my issue?
Well...as usual, you didn't answer my questions. I'd still like those answered. To answer yours;
I don't think you ever did tell me it was hyperbole, but, no, that would't have sold me - I would have wanted you to tell me why you did what you did.
I did pay attention to your posts - I will agree I didn't find them to be bleeding town, but then a number of other players also didn't get that off you, so I'm not sure that's an issue with me alone.
I don't think people behave the same when they are annoyed - that said, I'm not sure how what I did was any more annoying than refusing to answer a question. Are you saying you started playing anti-town and refused to answer my questions because I was annoying? How was I annoying *prior* to getting bent out of shape that you were ignoring my questions? I don't think that timeline plays out. As far as the second part, I don't really get the question here - you're asking me if I would have townish vibes if someone was interacting positively with me? I would say, generally, yes, I do that. Though the interactions would need to feel like scumhunting more than just empty friendliness.
When other players told me I was tunneling I discussed what I was doing with them - none disagreed.
I don't think any other player told me it was obvious hyperbole, so no, I didn't react to that.
When you told me I was tunneling I asked you to answer my questions - you then refused to. I'm not sure why you thought that would end the tunnel. It certainly didn't help my situation.
Which player told me my issue was borne of hurt pride and personal slight? I don't think this ever happened.
Scum also didn't NK dC who tunneled on scum Az all game - I find this to be a false concept.
There might have been something to get me out, if you had defended your actions and answered my questions - it certainly had worked in the past when you had done that method.
As a townie I have town read and scum read people who tunneled. I can see where your scum read on me came from, I guess you cannot see where mine on you came from. I'm not sure what that says. But, yes, I understand, as town, your scum read on me - I do disagree with how you dealt with it once you didn't have a scum read on me. Frankly, as town I disagree with how you dealt with it when it was a scum read, but you were trying to lynch me, and in a general sense that is what you do as town to scum reads.
I don't have a strong opinion on your NK meta, I have often claimed in this game that I had no clear idea of your meta. I suppose from the way this is phrased the answer is 'no' but if you had asked me that during the game I wouldn't have had that as an answer - I have, as scum, both killed and not killed people tunneling me for various reasons. I would have supposed you would do the same.
1. Why, in a different game, did you choose to address it but not this time?
2. Why didn't you address it during the period you claimed to be town reading me, as a means of helping de-tunnel the tunneled town?
Still unoptimal, but not a 'oh dear gawd the house is burning' moment.
Just as a head's up, I just edited the above post. Am I blind, or did it not make an alert note about it?
Or maybe we turned off that system after the game ended?
That's an issue as far as Mafia games on this board goes.
Edit: Test Edit after Rhand's post
Why did you avoid talking with me about my issue during the game like you did in the SoIaF game?
I never changed my mind because, in my opinion, I never got the new evidence. I never got any further evidence at all, I was left at the end of a road wanting to know what the path looked like, and you seemed to lack any desire to bring a light around.
I also will admit I disagree that I had a single point, though will agree I was strongly focused on my case on you - but as I said earlier, I can't think of an important subject that I didn't address in the game.
I persisted because of two reasons;
1. What I had seen so far felt easy to fake - I could certainly fake that level of reaction.
2. The other game I had seen the tell used, her reaction had been different - and that was the type of reaction I was looking for.
To a minor extent the 'I don't want to give you a reaction' commentary from her also felt like something scum would say as an 'out' from the tell.
@Tammy - I don't think I ever claimed to be able to read your emotions, and even when you were discussing that with me you were pointing out how I had little to no experience with your emotion tells and I openly agreed with you on that, though said I was attempting to understand it.
@DGB - I am trying to understand the stance of other people, I am not trying to explain why you are scum. Please allow me to try to improve myself for next game - I have already agreed to avoid you like the plague in the future - feel free to not read my posts.
The alignment tell was not in the lie though, the alignment tell was in that she wouldn't talk about the lie and used me reacting negatively towards her for lying as a scumtell and in that she had no reason to lie about it.
You call it a mental shortcut - okay. But, as shown, i actually broke down and presented my thoughts of 'here is why she'd do it as town, and here is why she'd do it as scum' and came up with nothing to justify it for town - I then asked her.
And she didn't choose to respond.
And then I tunneled.
Why was that a lazy or poor move on my part in your opinion?
It does - I'm just curious about the thought process of the people suggesting that what I did was, in effect, the doom of the town. I find that a silly and unsupportable stance to take and find my play to have bad elements, but suggest I am hardly alone in that as I think many people played poorly in this game, and also that as far as my issue with Kami goes, though I find most of the blame on her end and a lesser amount on mine, I am chagrined that multiple people seem to find her somehow blameless, which is what I'm trying to figure out. She lied, then refused to discuss it - that's bad play in my book. Now, maybe other people can disagree it's a scum case...okay, I disagree, but...even if it's not a total scum case people should have been willing to talk to me about it instead of acting like what she did was fine. unless people are looking to argue that it *is* fine in which case I would benefit from having it explained as to 'why' it is fine, because I massively disagree with every belief I have about how the game should be played.
I mean, I could start lying and refusing to discuss it if that's what town play is nowadays - but people need to talk me through that. I missed the memo.
First off, I looked at and commented on *many* things. I personally found it annoying how people never seemed to notice nor care. Heck, look at my play this game and find a situation that I *didn't* comment on. I dare you - I bet I can link you to my comment with ease. I did FOCUS on Kami, but that's because I wanted to lynch her. That is different than a mindless tunnel in my opinion.
I also am bothered that people feel I got "caught up in nonesense" this gmae. i waas hearing that for DAYS and it felt like a scum story that people decided to believe with no actual basis. Here's what I understood the situation to be;
1. Kami lied about meta with me to push my lynch (unless you care to buy her "100%" accuracy story about me...and if you do...well...say so)
2. I called her on the lie.
3. She defended the lie.
4. I called her scum.
5. She said I was scum for pushing that angle.
6. I said that made no sense
7. She stopped talking about it.
8. I kept calling her scum, and kept pointing out how she was evading the topic.
9. People called me "caught in nonsense"
10. Probably somewhere in there she dropped in her 'caught for the wrong reasons' malarky just to really make my day. Oh, and I wasn't caught for the wrong reasons - shock.
Look...if it was a reaction test - then as shown in a game I linked, she as town, lied, and I called her on it, she got a reaction from me, admitted it was a lie - AND I DROPPED THE POINT.
In this game, she lied, and then evaded discussing the thy or wherefore of the lie (which I thought made no town sense to lie about - because the only reaction you could get was negative...and apparently she decided that equaled scum). When someone lies in a game of mafia, does so to push a case on someone, and lacks any valid reaction reasoning, and then is shady about admitting they did it or discussing why they did it - then I am going to think that person is scum.
That is just an absolute tell in my mind.
I have no idea why anyone else saw it differently, or why they thought my stance was unusual.
I would love commentary on this - because I literally feel like all of you are talking absolute CRAZY when you suggest I was being unreasonable. Please, clue me in here, where is my logic flawed, or where did I fail to convey my issue?