(He's talking to me of course) You could have read this and deduced that your joking around(and me going along) was a "peripheral angle" instead of a "main issue" making it "one of the biggest scumtells". *Shrug* I honestly don't know.:facepalm:
And here's a question for you: Why did you ignore my post for some time?
@Xyre: Uh...what exactly are you doing?
At the time, I think my joking around was as much of a "main issue" as we currently had, so i don't think you could be accused of that. : )
Because there is no point to saying that. All it does is alert Netfinity (if he doesn't actually have a valid reason) that there is something to look for. You forced my hand though.
I see the case on Netfinity and Xyre, but I'm still missing the one on Chris.
Joining the call for you to announce your reasoning.
I'm now operating under the assumption that Az just wanted a way to kickstart the game and look for reactions ( I think Toastboy mentioned this first).
If we take Az's list as final, then we have 4 scum. I doubt it.
Xyre: Why are you acting so weird? IF you actually have something to say why don't you say it?
True... that was all I could come up with for Skander :s
Nothing odd about Kpaca, and I don't think Chris is scum. When I've seen him play scum before he isn't this open or relaxed: to the contrary, he was argumentative and aggressive for the whole game.
AH I agree on, not sure about WoD, but I'm never sure with him.
At the moment I find Netfinity most suspicious, but that's not saying much.
Am I voting for you yet? Because I should be. Unvote, vote Toastboy.
If we take Az's list as final, then we have 4 scum. I doubt it.
There's two ways to take that list. One, as irrefutable proof that we have 4 scum. Two, as irrefutable proof that Azrael has scum-reads off four players.
I think the former makes the most sense, but that's just me.
True... that was all I could come up with for Skander :s
Nothing odd about Kpaca, and I don't think Chris is scum. When I've seen him play scum before he isn't this open or relaxed: to the contrary, he was argumentative and aggressive for the whole game.
AH I agree on, not sure about WoD, but I'm never sure with him.
At the moment I find Netfinity most suspicious, but that's not saying much.
Unvote, Vote Toastboy.
I find your lack of pants... disturbing.
I wouldn't be clearing anyone based on meta this early in the game. I'm not saying I find Chris scummy, since I really don't, but the fact that you're already jumping to his defense with metagame analysis kind of yelps "Look at me! I'm a helpful scum! I have opinions!"
I wouldn't be clearing anyone based on meta this early in the game. I'm not saying I find Chris scummy, since I really don't, but the fact that you're already jumping to his defense with metagame analysis kind of yelps "Look at me! I'm a helpful scum! I have opinions!"
Quote from Toastboy »
@Kraj, you think Azrael can't find chainsaw-bloodied kittens? This is the internet you know =]
@ Azrael, I think you voted Chris not necessarily because you think he is town, maybe to gauge how he reacts now? As for Skander, I'd say because what he has said was purely joking around, no purposeful hints in his posts.
In addition to being a lukewarmy, unoriginal poser just a moment ago, here are my ultra-fine mentality reads on Toastboy Mark I.
Bolded section: First, that statement tacitly assumes that I'm town, and from that assumption advances the 2nd assumption that I'm laying an informational trap. If you're already afraid of being caught, it's not too difficult to see what other players are doing as attempts to trip you up, despite evidence in the thread to the contrary ("This is a serious vote").
Then having seen the suspected trap, he decides to share his keen recognition with the thread. Hey, look guys: I'm not going to let this here Azrael pull a fast one on me.
And never mind that by saying something, he'll be nullifying any value that could come from what he suspected I was doing. If you think a fellow townie is setting a trap, do you just come right out and immediately tell everyone about it? Hopefully not. Not unless you're more interested in receiving credit from others for your opinions, than in actually finding scum.
Xyre had the same idea about what I was doing, but as a slightly more experienced mafioso, he hid his read behind a laughing dog.
Second, who is ToastyBoy trying to read here? Not Chris. He's trying to read the guy he's tacitly assuming is town. He dodges the actual discourse entirely. If he's curious about Chris' alignment, and in helping the town towards an accurate read on him, it's not coming through here.
And when he finally does come through with his reads on the thread so far? Four one-sentence, superficial sound bites with no analysis attached, no reasoning, and not even a strong position or a vote to help move the game along. There's no thought behind it: there's just a cardboard cutout that says "hello thread: I am contributing opinions! Pay me no mind, and go about your business!"
Gentlemen, you might never see a better two-post PBPA within the first 80 posts of a thread.
Wherefore, I am proud to place my vote, ever so lovingly, upon that two-faced traitor, Toastboy. TO THE GALLOWS WITH HIM! :mad1:
Took me a moment, but I spotted what Az noticed in Chris*. Remind you of Redux a bit, Az?
Posts that pique my interest: 23, 32, 45**, 51, 54, 62, 76, 81
* Though, considering his recent posts, my guess at the moment is closer to Freudian slip than the kind of situation from that game. At the very least, he doesn't seem to have the subtlety to employ that kind of tactic. I think I'll go track down a Chris-scum game to confirm that suspicion.
** I want Netfinity to go line-by-line through the quoted part. I don't think I fully understand it, and want to see how exactly he reached his conclusion.
So far, I think Az, WoD, and kpaca are town, with a "leaning town" off Chris and perhaps AH, though he and several others need to post more. Provisional scum list is Netfinity, Skander, and Toastboy.
Toastboy says that what you're trying to do is gauge chris' reaction but he proceeds to evaluate why you think I'm town. If he had no knoweldge of mine or Chris' alignment (or yours for that matter) then the obvious assumption would be that you're trying to gauge everyones reactions. Toastboy assumes that you're trying to gauge Chris' reaction but that you had valid reason for assuming I'm town - he just has to find that reason.
Although I like kittens...
Good Town Position > Kittens:p
"Good town position" is the type of phrase a scum would use. A townie would probably just say "good position"; "good town position" implies the town is a different group. It's like saying "Megan Fox is attractive to us men" - redundant, unless you aren't represented in the group.
The comparison I was trying to draw was to the post that got me killed in Redux, when I tried to qualify an "all your base" joke by fixing the "us" in an EBWODP (as mafia).
Xyre had 1 post at the point where you decided to FoS him, this one:
Try as I might, I can't get scum from it.
Then we have Chris, who's apparent crime was engaging in random conversation with you.
Then Netfinity brings a point against Chris (he's too self-conscious) and then he becomes lynchworthy as well.
So, suffice it to say that I am very confused.
That's a strange choice of phrase - "can't get scum from it". Maybe it isn't a major issue, but here I'd think "I don't think it is scummy". The difference is that the latter is an inactive process - the post is scummy by its nature - versus the former, which is an active process - I argue this post is scummy. One angle is the implication of "get" for Az. Rather than suggesting the post is scummy by its own nature and Az just picked up on this, you actively suggested he "got" the scumminess, which you haven't - in essence, Az is actively trying to manufacture the wagon.
Then we look at the next few lines. The Chris line is very defensive, using charged words like "crime" and deflecting Az's criticisms. Now, granted, Az has been quite aggressive this game and glanced over some of the reasoning behind his attacks on Chris, but I don't really see "random conversation" in Chris' posts, either. This would be a key point to provide some examples, but you pass over it quickly. Equally light is the analysis of the Networthy accusation. Your last sentence helps solidify this brief analysis by subtly blaming it on Az's lack of clarity. "Confusion" suggests to me dissonance, not just lack-of-clarity, and repeating it only seems to further that lack.
Joining the call for you to announce your reasoning.
I'm now operating under the assumption that Az just wanted a way to kickstart the game and look for reactions ( I think Toastboy mentioned this first).
If we take Az's list as final, then we have 4 scum. I doubt it.
Xyre: Why are you acting so weird? IF you actually have something to say why don't you say it?
The first two lines are both "I agree" arguments. "Joining" especially suggests both active participation and strength, which helps you avoid having to say anything about why his post is suspect. The Az's list line goes without saying. And what is wrong with arguing via smiley, as I did in two of the three posts you quoted (the third obviously being a bad joke)?
I don't think you're necessarily guaranteed scum, but you're one of my top three suspects at the moment.
Man, trying to second-guess you is giving me a headache.
Alright, tell me if I've got it. When Chris says this:
"Good town position" is the type of phrase a scum would use. A townie would probably just say "good position"; "good town position" implies the town is a different group. It's like saying "Megan Fox is attractive to us men" - redundant, unless you aren't represented in the group.
The comparison I was trying to draw was to the post that got me killed in Redux, when I tried to qualify an "all your base" joke by fixing the "us" in an EBWODP (as mafia).
Ah, I remember now. Good town position is probably a helpful clarifier there, though.
Well, I don't know Az, and I will easily concede that he is a better player than I, but here is my read on Az's vote on Xyre:
Az votes for the mod on page one
Xyre barns the mod vote
The novelty of the mod vote was lost after the first time it was done. Xyre's post was therefor neither funny nor conducive to scum hunting.
I think I just lost 500 Az points.
That's actually not too far from the mark. I'd simply describe his first post as awkward and forced. Unnatural. Kinda like some of the analysis he just did.
*scratches head* Then again, Xyre is just naturally weird.
That's a strange choice of phrase - "can't get scum from it". Maybe it isn't a major issue, but here I'd think "I don't think it is scummy". The difference is that the latter is an inactive process - the post is scummy by its nature - versus the former, which is an active process - I argue this post is scummy. One angle is the implication of "get" for Az. Rather than suggesting the post is scummy by its own nature and Az just picked up on this, you actively suggested he "got" the scumminess, which you haven't - in essence, Az is actively trying to manufacture the wagon.
I think the more natural implication there is that Skander is trying to "get" the scumminess...and he's just not getting it.
I don't say an implication that I'm pulling stuff out of thin air, I just see an implication that he's, as he said, very confused.
Quote from Xyre »
Then we look at the next few lines. The Chris line is very defensive, using charged words like "crime" and deflecting Az's criticisms. Now, granted, Az has been quite aggressive this game and glanced over some of the reasoning behind his attacks on Chris, but I don't really see "random conversation" in Chris' posts, either. This would be a key point to provide some examples, but you pass over it quickly. Equally light is the analysis of the Networthy accusation. Your last sentence helps solidify this brief analysis by subtly blaming it on Az's lack of clarity. "Confusion" suggests to me dissonance, not just lack-of-clarity, and repeating it only seems to further that lack.
There is some charged word usage, but I don't see him deflecting or using that rhetoric in any way that would disturb me. I also don't think that expecting him to do a PBPA of what appears to him to be random conversation is very intuitive, either.
Quote from Xyre »
And:
The first two lines are both "I agree" arguments. "Joining" especially suggests both active participation and strength, which helps you avoid having to say anything about why his post is suspect. The Az's list line goes without saying.
Meh. Playing captain obvious isn't a scum tell. Just silly.
And I don't think Skander's been skittish about explaining his reasoning elsewhere throughout the thread. He's been pretty admirable in that respect, actually.
Quote from Xyre »
And what is wrong with arguing via smiley, as I did in two of the three posts you quoted (the third obviously being a bad joke)?
I don't think you're necessarily guaranteed scum, but you're one of my top three suspects at the moment.
I think you're conflating his saying you were acting weird with accusing you of being scummy. That's not necessarily his intent there.
I still read Skander as town.
Quote from Kpaca »
I'm leaning town on Xyre. In my only other game with him, most of his arguments were semantic based and I didn't get them. I feel the same here.
If that's his style these days, then it's a null tell, not a town tell.
MTGS stats (won/played)
As scum - 3/5
As town - 5/7
As neutral - none
(I really have been scum a lot)
I'm now writing for Eye of the Vortex, come check out MTG articles and other geek culture
I also moderate the MTG forum, so register (it's free) and voice your thoughts.
Well, not really. If he already had a read on you, why would he be trying to guage your reactions in the same way he was Chris'? This post smells a little of bandwagoning.
Why did you assume he had a read on me and was thus not trying to gauge my reactions but on Chris he didn't have a read and therefore was trying to gauge his reactions?
Xyre: Forgot to respond earlier. There's nothing inherently wrong in arguing via smiley, it's just that I won't necessarily get your intent (as happened over here).
As for your whole 'case' on me, it amounts to wording analysis. Az has done a good job of showing how such things are easily refuted.
And for my "Why are they all lynchworthy" post, you're approaching it from your perspective that the arguments are valid and thus I need to refute them properly. But where I'm coming from is genuine confusion about what the arguments are; I'm not trying to refute anything, just showing that there is nothing intuitive I should be picking up on and thus it falls to Az to explain his reasoning.
If it was a random vote, no-one would pay attention to it, and so any reaction you wanted to garner would not be there.
And if I were not serious, it would be a lie. Lies should be used very sparingly by the town.
Quote from Toastboy »
I assumed you were laying a trap, because that's what I hear you do. Trying to second guess you, I have now found, is pointless. I found a trap because I assumed you were doing something sneaky, being Azrael.
Sneaky? Me?? You've been sadly misinformed.
My issue is that you jumped immediately to the sneaky-conclusion. You see occasionally, I have serious votes against people I think are scum. Shocking, isn't it?
Quote from Toastboy »
A fast one on me? This 'trap' had nothing to do with me, only with Chris. I just wanted a taste of those delicious Azrael points =]
If it were a trap, it would have been a trap for everyone in the thread.
Quote from Toastboy »
I'm trying and failing to read you, yes, but why does trying to read you and not Chris make me scum?
If someone is more interested in reading townies than in reading potential mafia, should you be worried?
Quote from Toastboy »
That post was rubbish, yes. Truthfully, I have very few reads this early on in the game any stronger than gut. I wanted to try and keep up with the pace that you guys (mainly you) are going at, and have failed, obviously.
Truthfully. Nice.
Ok, ok, I suppose the use of truthfully there is really a null tell, but it was too good to resist.
Rubbish, though? That's a harsh word. Is your post "rubbish" if it was merely superficial? Or is it rubbish because it doesn't accurately represent what you think? Because it was an imitation of what other players were doing, rather than opinions you strongly or genuinely felt? Or is rubbish because it's brought all this town attention down on you?
I know why I think it was rubbish. Why do you think it was rubbish?
Quote from Toastboy »
Please don't lynch me before then :s
Speeeeedlyyynch!!! Wooooo! Let's go!
In other news, I too will be gone until Monday. And I too would prefer that we don't WoLG anyone.
@Kraj, you think Azrael can't find chainsaw-bloodied kittens? This is the internet you know =]
@ Azrael, I think you voted Chris not necessarily because you think he is town, maybe to gauge how he reacts now? As for Skander, I'd say because what he has said was purely joking around, no purposeful hints in his posts.
In addition to being a lukewarmy, unoriginal poser just a moment ago, here are my ultra-fine mentality reads on Toastboy Mark I.
Bolded section: First, that statement tacitly assumes that I'm town, and from that assumption advances the 2nd assumption that I'm laying an informational trap. If you're already afraid of being caught, it's not too difficult to see what other players are doing as attempts to trip you up, despite evidence in the thread to the contrary ("This is a serious vote"). Perhaps, but you are a player known to set traps and look for reactions. The "this is a serious vote" could have meant the exact opposite to some than what you intended for it to mean; players may have thought that you were using it to reinforce pressure and exact a more genuine reaction. This to me eclipses the fear of being caught argument you presented.
Then having seen the suspected trap, he decides to share his keen recognition with the thread. Hey, look guys: I'm not going to let this here Azrael pull a fast one on me. It didn't seem like he did this to me at all. His thoughts are focused on how Chris would react so I don't think that him dodging suspicion by saying "I'm not letting Azrael pull a fast one on me" makes much sense here.
And never mind that by saying something, he'll be nullifying any value that could come from what he suspected I was doing. If you think a fellow townie is setting a trap, do you just come right out and immediately tell everyone about it? Hopefully not. Not unless you're more interested in receiving credit from others for your opinions, than in actually finding scum. This is the only point that I think holds any water but based on the sole game I've read him in, I think such behavior is at least partially explained by playstyle.
Xyre had the same idea about what I was doing, but as a slightly more experienced mafioso, he hid his read behind a laughing dog. I think this was shown to be untrue.
Second, who is ToastyBoy trying to read here? Not Chris. He's trying to read the guy he's tacitly assuming is town. He dodges the actual discourse entirely. If he's curious about Chris' alignment, and in helping the town towards an accurate read on him, it's not coming through here.
I don't understand your bit here about reading the guy (you) who he's tacitly assuming is town. If he is assuming your town as you say then why would he be trying to read you?
And when he finally does come through with his reads on the thread so far? Four one-sentence, superficial sound bites with no analysis attached, no reasoning, and not even a strong position or a vote to help move the game along. There's no thought behind it: there's just a cardboard cutout that says "hello thread: I am contributing opinions! Pay me no mind, and go about your business!" Perhaps the best way to deal with this is, is ask for Toastboy to explain his reads to see if he actually did have any analysis behind them. Toastboy could you explain your reads in post 74?
On, WoD's point, I think WoD's right in that it is too early to think that someone's town based on meta reasons and that Toast is coming to Chris's defense to early. It doesn't mean much to me without alignments.
As for Skander's point, I'll wait for Toastboy to respond.
I see a couple of points that could be valid but nothing convincing.
So my read on Toastboy is neutral but subject to change depending on his answer to my question.
Xyre, since you want to see how I made the point against Chris I don't think analyzing Chris's post sentence by sentence is the best way to go about it. I read his post and the fact that he was basically saying -Az finds me scummy and voted me for this- jumped out at me because how self-consciously I played when I was scum. I took into consideration that Az did ask for players to guess why he was voting, but I still didn't think that justified Chris's response.
Quote from Chris »
The actions could be seen as scummy if one thought about it the way I put it. To defend myself I have to know of what I am guilty, don't you think?
That's true but the way you went about finding out what you did isn't how I think a townie would react. I townie I think would have asked why, but you went about and analyzed your own behavior self-consciously.
Quote from Xyre »
When he makes a vote off the same exact post, with no supporting reasoning, in the post immediately after Az's vote. This is what WoD does.
WoD had the supporting reason while Az merely called Toast a poser. Also why do you think WoD doing a WoD-type thing (I interpreted this as the word "playstyle") is a town tell? Aren't actions indicative of playstyle more null tells than anything else?
Quote from Skander »
As for your whole 'case' on me, it amounts to wording analysis. Az has done a good job of showing how such things are easily refuted.
I'm not comfortable with you just using Az's defense as a pass. You should still explain yourself regarding those points against you.
Also Az, will your explanation of your read on Skander come in due time as well?
I'm not comfortable with you just using Az's defense as a pass. You should still explain yourself regarding those points against you.
I'm not hiding behind Az's answers. I'm saying Az's answers show how wording attacks are weak. You can interpret every word how you want if you're looking to find scum in them but in reality I'm not going to be using the same words you would use - because we have different language styles. Obviously sometimes there are exceptions to this but in the attack Xyre brings against me I see nothing important.
That's a strange choice of phrase - "can't get scum from it". Maybe it isn't a major issue, but here I'd think "I don't think it is scummy". The difference is that the latter is an inactive process - the post is scummy by its nature - versus the former, which is an active process - I argue this post is scummy. One angle is the implication of "get" for Az. Rather than suggesting the post is scummy by its own nature and Az just picked up on this, you actively suggested he "got" the scumminess, which you haven't - in essence, Az is actively trying to manufacture the wagon.
He's right, one word choice is inactive, one is active. And so? I looked over the post a few times trying to see what Az saw and didn't. This was an active process. How is that scummy?
Then we look at the next few lines. The Chris line is very defensive, using charged words like "crime" and deflecting Az's criticisms. Now, granted, Az has been quite aggressive this game and glanced over some of the reasoning behind his attacks on Chris, but I don't really see "random conversation" in Chris' posts, either. This would be a key point to provide some examples, but you pass over it quickly. Equally light is the analysis of the Networthy accusation. Your last sentence helps solidify this brief analysis by subtly blaming it on Az's lack of clarity. "Confusion" suggests to me dissonance, not just lack-of-clarity, and repeating it only seems to further that lack.
I already addressed the second half of this paragraph, and the bolded answers the first half. I saw no reason at all to suspect Chris, yet Az was pushing forward with it like it was obvious. Of course you saw something in Chris' posts but as I already said, I didn't.
Also, really nice of you guys to start a wagon on me when I'm going away for the weekend Glad I posted this morning. However, I won't be able to respond to anything else before Monday. Please don't lynch me before then :s
If it bothers you so much, perhaps we should just lynch you so you don't have to worry about the game anymore?
My issue is that you jumped immediately to the sneaky-conclusion. You see occasionally, I have serious votes against people I think are scum. Shocking, isn't it?
I think when jerubbaal warned of mind games, he was referring to the fact that Azrael singed up to play.
wow...I'm really not sure how to take this. I may not be the best at reading but from what I can tell Az was just using the DATBF phase to see if he could get a reaction ot of people...so far I haven't seen much.
At current I'll stick with a Vote: Skander for 3rd vote-ery. Toastboy hasn't made himself blatant but I'm not sure if getting the wagon rolling this quickly is good.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Top 16 - 2012 Indiana State Championships Currently Playing: GBStandard - Golgari Safari MidrangeBG RBWModern - Mardu PyromancerWBR RLegacy - Good Old Fashioned BurnR
EBWODP: check that, Unvote, Vote Kraj for similar reasons. I don't like the speed of this wagon
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Top 16 - 2012 Indiana State Championships Currently Playing: GBStandard - Golgari Safari MidrangeBG RBWModern - Mardu PyromancerWBR RLegacy - Good Old Fashioned BurnR
@Kraj: You may not like my post, but it is the sort of posts I make. I just post what I think and I go with the flow. Some people are analytical, but I prefer to keep a lot of my analysis to myself until the time is right.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Official Moderator of The [Gutter]
Think the MtgStaff is just swell? Join today! You too can be involved in an 8 year grudge and delete nearly 9000 of kpaca's posts!
All you were doing with that post was acknowledging the existence of cases, not whether or not you agreed with them? Huh.
Perhaps you should check back on that post. The most relevant part was that I didn't even see the case against Chris.
I think that toastboy is getting rather frustrated, but in my experience that can mean caught scum or overwhelmed town. I'm reserving judgment on him.
One thing that strikes me as majorly suspicious is Kraj's last post. He starts by saying he's happy with his kpaca vote, and finishes by voting for toastboy... Is this a joke? I think we're far enough out of random to deem it not to be, and I think toastboy has enough votes on him for this to be simple bandwagoning.
vote: kraj
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I see the case on Netfinity and Xyre, but I'm still missing the one on Chris.
Yes that's the only reason.
And that is scummy because...?
How does the fact that he's completely failing in his explanation factor in for you?
AH is town.
Mmm, yes. Pray tell. This should be good.
If someone sees the same thing I see in Xyre, I'll take -500 Az points.
So, so far we've got:
Town
Abandon Hope
Azrael
Skander
?
Charm_Master3125
kpaca
Kraj
PhantomS
Wrath_of_Dog
Scum
ChrisXIV
Netfinity
Xyre
Toastboy
Reads on over half the players so far. Not too bad for post 64.
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
This was a serious post.
Why so serious?
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
You're scum. *HIGH FIVE*
Agree on WoD. Unsure on Kraj.
True story.
Shut up and take the compliment.
I'm curious: why does AH's response make you think he's town but not Toastboy's?
Also,
Unvote, Vote: kpaca
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
Different mentalities, different subtexts.
Why the Kpaca vote? Seems like business as usual for K-dude.
At the time, I think my joking around was as much of a "main issue" as we currently had, so i don't think you could be accused of that. : )
I ignored it because I didn't see it.
Because there is no point to saying that. All it does is alert Netfinity (if he doesn't actually have a valid reason) that there is something to look for. You forced my hand though.
Joining the call for you to announce your reasoning.
I'm now operating under the assumption that Az just wanted a way to kickstart the game and look for reactions ( I think Toastboy mentioned this first).
If we take Az's list as final, then we have 4 scum. I doubt it.
Xyre: Why are you acting so weird? IF you actually have something to say why don't you say it?
Random stage, precious?
Am I voting for you yet? Because I should be. Unvote, vote Toastboy.
You, sir, are a poser.
There's two ways to take that list. One, as irrefutable proof that we have 4 scum. Two, as irrefutable proof that Azrael has scum-reads off four players.
I think the former makes the most sense, but that's just me.
I find your lack of pants... disturbing.
I wouldn't be clearing anyone based on meta this early in the game. I'm not saying I find Chris scummy, since I really don't, but the fact that you're already jumping to his defense with metagame analysis kind of yelps "Look at me! I'm a helpful scum! I have opinions!"
WoD's last post is a very WoD-type thing to do, which suggests he's town despite his bandwagoning.
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
We are no longer in the random.
Since when is the second vote bandwagoning? It seems to me as if you're unnecessarily defending him.
It lends credence to my argument. He feels that his actions are scummy even when they aren't.
You're still next.
In addition to being a lukewarmy, unoriginal poser just a moment ago, here are my ultra-fine mentality reads on Toastboy Mark I.
Bolded section: First, that statement tacitly assumes that I'm town, and from that assumption advances the 2nd assumption that I'm laying an informational trap. If you're already afraid of being caught, it's not too difficult to see what other players are doing as attempts to trip you up, despite evidence in the thread to the contrary ("This is a serious vote").
Then having seen the suspected trap, he decides to share his keen recognition with the thread. Hey, look guys: I'm not going to let this here Azrael pull a fast one on me.
And never mind that by saying something, he'll be nullifying any value that could come from what he suspected I was doing. If you think a fellow townie is setting a trap, do you just come right out and immediately tell everyone about it? Hopefully not. Not unless you're more interested in receiving credit from others for your opinions, than in actually finding scum.
Xyre had the same idea about what I was doing, but as a slightly more experienced mafioso, he hid his read behind a laughing dog.
Second, who is ToastyBoy trying to read here? Not Chris. He's trying to read the guy he's tacitly assuming is town. He dodges the actual discourse entirely. If he's curious about Chris' alignment, and in helping the town towards an accurate read on him, it's not coming through here.
And when he finally does come through with his reads on the thread so far? Four one-sentence, superficial sound bites with no analysis attached, no reasoning, and not even a strong position or a vote to help move the game along. There's no thought behind it: there's just a cardboard cutout that says "hello thread: I am contributing opinions! Pay me no mind, and go about your business!"
Gentlemen, you might never see a better two-post PBPA within the first 80 posts of a thread.
Wherefore, I am proud to place my vote, ever so lovingly, upon that two-faced traitor, Toastboy. TO THE GALLOWS WITH HIM! :mad1:
Or maybe he's looking for a way to see his posts as scummy, but utterly failing, because he doesn't understand how he did anything scummy at all.
Provisionally bumping Chris back to the ? column. Netfinity can chill with Toast-scum and Xyre-scum for now.
I don't see how this is the case considering that he pointed out himself that he was in fact self-conscious.
Also, you still need to explain why you had a scum read on Chris.
When he makes a vote off the same exact post, with no supporting reasoning, in the post immediately after Az's vote. This is what WoD does.
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
Posts that pique my interest: 23, 32, 45**, 51, 54, 62, 76, 81
* Though, considering his recent posts, my guess at the moment is closer to Freudian slip than the kind of situation from that game. At the very least, he doesn't seem to have the subtlety to employ that kind of tactic. I think I'll go track down a Chris-scum game to confirm that suspicion.
** I want Netfinity to go line-by-line through the quoted part. I don't think I fully understand it, and want to see how exactly he reached his conclusion.
So far, I think Az, WoD, and kpaca are town, with a "leaning town" off Chris and perhaps AH, though he and several others need to post more. Provisional scum list is Netfinity, Skander, and Toastboy.
People need to post more.
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
Toastboy says that what you're trying to do is gauge chris' reaction but he proceeds to evaluate why you think I'm town. If he had no knoweldge of mine or Chris' alignment (or yours for that matter) then the obvious assumption would be that you're trying to gauge everyones reactions. Toastboy assumes that you're trying to gauge Chris' reaction but that you had valid reason for assuming I'm town - he just has to find that reason.
Unvote, Vote Toastboy
Of course, my suspicions of netfinity are more concrete.
All in good time.
Going 'look at what I'm doing' is fine. Going "look what I'm doing" while doing a bad imitation of a townie is more problematic.
Sure. I'll pretend I know what you're talking about.
Skander? Really? He's voting for scum, you know.
I think you're just semi-OMGUSing.
Man, trying to second-guess you is giving me a headache.
Alright, tell me if I've got it. When Chris says this:
"Good town position" is the type of phrase a scum would use. A townie would probably just say "good position"; "good town position" implies the town is a different group. It's like saying "Megan Fox is attractive to us men" - redundant, unless you aren't represented in the group.
The comparison I was trying to draw was to the post that got me killed in Redux, when I tried to qualify an "all your base" joke by fixing the "us" in an EBWODP (as mafia).
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
Well, I don't know Az, and I will easily concede that he is a better player than I, but here is my read on Az's vote on Xyre:
Az votes for the mod on page one
Xyre barns the mod vote
The novelty of the mod vote was lost after the first time it was done. Xyre's post was therefor neither funny nor conducive to scum hunting.
I think I just lost 500 Az points.
That's the case on Xyre?
It seems you didn't think about it until now (at which point you realized that it was bad, considering your opening and closing statements).
As I recall, I said I saw the case, not that I agreed with it.
An analysis of the posts in question:
That's a strange choice of phrase - "can't get scum from it". Maybe it isn't a major issue, but here I'd think "I don't think it is scummy". The difference is that the latter is an inactive process - the post is scummy by its nature - versus the former, which is an active process - I argue this post is scummy. One angle is the implication of "get" for Az. Rather than suggesting the post is scummy by its own nature and Az just picked up on this, you actively suggested he "got" the scumminess, which you haven't - in essence, Az is actively trying to manufacture the wagon.
Then we look at the next few lines. The Chris line is very defensive, using charged words like "crime" and deflecting Az's criticisms. Now, granted, Az has been quite aggressive this game and glanced over some of the reasoning behind his attacks on Chris, but I don't really see "random conversation" in Chris' posts, either. This would be a key point to provide some examples, but you pass over it quickly. Equally light is the analysis of the Networthy accusation. Your last sentence helps solidify this brief analysis by subtly blaming it on Az's lack of clarity. "Confusion" suggests to me dissonance, not just lack-of-clarity, and repeating it only seems to further that lack.
And:
The first two lines are both "I agree" arguments. "Joining" especially suggests both active participation and strength, which helps you avoid having to say anything about why his post is suspect. The Az's list line goes without saying. And what is wrong with arguing via smiley, as I did in two of the three posts you quoted (the third obviously being a bad joke)?
I don't think you're necessarily guaranteed scum, but you're one of my top three suspects at the moment.
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
Hmm. Need to think about this post. It's quite a puzzler.
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
Ah, I remember now. Good town position is probably a helpful clarifier there, though.
That's actually not too far from the mark. I'd simply describe his first post as awkward and forced. Unnatural. Kinda like some of the analysis he just did.
*scratches head* Then again, Xyre is just naturally weird.
*awards 500 Azrael points to Phantom*
I think the more natural implication there is that Skander is trying to "get" the scumminess...and he's just not getting it.
I don't say an implication that I'm pulling stuff out of thin air, I just see an implication that he's, as he said, very confused.
There is some charged word usage, but I don't see him deflecting or using that rhetoric in any way that would disturb me. I also don't think that expecting him to do a PBPA of what appears to him to be random conversation is very intuitive, either.
Meh. Playing captain obvious isn't a scum tell. Just silly.
And I don't think Skander's been skittish about explaining his reasoning elsewhere throughout the thread. He's been pretty admirable in that respect, actually.
I think you're conflating his saying you were acting weird with accusing you of being scummy. That's not necessarily his intent there.
I still read Skander as town.
If that's his style these days, then it's a null tell, not a town tell.
As in, you need to wait for Az to post before you decided what to say?
Toastboy - 3 (Azrael, WoD, Skander)
kpaca - 2 (Toastboy, Kraj)
Azrael - 1 (CM)
CM - 1 (Chris)
Chris - 1 (Netfinity)
Netfinity - 1 (kpaca)
MTGS stats (won/played)
As scum - 3/5
As town - 5/7
As neutral - none
(I really have been scum a lot)
I'm now writing for Eye of the Vortex, come check out MTG articles and other geek culture
I also moderate the MTG forum, so register (it's free) and voice your thoughts.
Why did you assume he had a read on me and was thus not trying to gauge my reactions but on Chris he didn't have a read and therefore was trying to gauge his reactions?
As for your whole 'case' on me, it amounts to wording analysis. Az has done a good job of showing how such things are easily refuted.
And for my "Why are they all lynchworthy" post, you're approaching it from your perspective that the arguments are valid and thus I need to refute them properly. But where I'm coming from is genuine confusion about what the arguments are; I'm not trying to refute anything, just showing that there is nothing intuitive I should be picking up on and thus it falls to Az to explain his reasoning.
And if I were not serious, it would be a lie. Lies should be used very sparingly by the town.
Sneaky? Me?? You've been sadly misinformed.
My issue is that you jumped immediately to the sneaky-conclusion. You see occasionally, I have serious votes against people I think are scum. Shocking, isn't it?
If it were a trap, it would have been a trap for everyone in the thread.
If someone is more interested in reading townies than in reading potential mafia, should you be worried?
Truthfully. Nice.
Ok, ok, I suppose the use of truthfully there is really a null tell, but it was too good to resist.
Rubbish, though? That's a harsh word. Is your post "rubbish" if it was merely superficial? Or is it rubbish because it doesn't accurately represent what you think? Because it was an imitation of what other players were doing, rather than opinions you strongly or genuinely felt? Or is rubbish because it's brought all this town attention down on you?
I know why I think it was rubbish. Why do you think it was rubbish?
Speeeeedlyyynch!!! Wooooo! Let's go!
In other news, I too will be gone until Monday. And I too would prefer that we don't WoLG anyone.
On, WoD's point, I think WoD's right in that it is too early to think that someone's town based on meta reasons and that Toast is coming to Chris's defense to early. It doesn't mean much to me without alignments.
As for Skander's point, I'll wait for Toastboy to respond.
I see a couple of points that could be valid but nothing convincing.
So my read on Toastboy is neutral but subject to change depending on his answer to my question.
Xyre, since you want to see how I made the point against Chris I don't think analyzing Chris's post sentence by sentence is the best way to go about it. I read his post and the fact that he was basically saying -Az finds me scummy and voted me for this- jumped out at me because how self-consciously I played when I was scum. I took into consideration that Az did ask for players to guess why he was voting, but I still didn't think that justified Chris's response.
That's true but the way you went about finding out what you did isn't how I think a townie would react. I townie I think would have asked why, but you went about and analyzed your own behavior self-consciously.
WoD had the supporting reason while Az merely called Toast a poser. Also why do you think WoD doing a WoD-type thing (I interpreted this as the word "playstyle") is a town tell? Aren't actions indicative of playstyle more null tells than anything else?
I'm not comfortable with you just using Az's defense as a pass. You should still explain yourself regarding those points against you.
Also Az, will your explanation of your read on Skander come in due time as well?
I'm not hiding behind Az's answers. I'm saying Az's answers show how wording attacks are weak. You can interpret every word how you want if you're looking to find scum in them but in reality I'm not going to be using the same words you would use - because we have different language styles. Obviously sometimes there are exceptions to this but in the attack Xyre brings against me I see nothing important.
He's right, one word choice is inactive, one is active. And so? I looked over the post a few times trying to see what Az saw and didn't. This was an active process. How is that scummy?
I already addressed the second half of this paragraph, and the bolded answers the first half. I saw no reason at all to suspect Chris, yet Az was pushing forward with it like it was obvious. Of course you saw something in Chris' posts but as I already said, I didn't.
I call 'em as I see 'em. Speaking of:
Hate it. Happy with my vote.
Congratulations! You have just earned your Ph.D. in Obviousness!
Hmmm... you didn't seem to mind Azrael's "business as usual" response to my vote on kpaca. Why not?
FoS: everyone who implicitly agrees with Azrael.
People seem to be forgetting that we don't really need a case on Xyre in order to lynch him, we just get to if we feel like it. It's Xyre.
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRReeeaaaaallllyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy.............?????????
All you were doing with that post was acknowledging the existence of cases, not whether or not you agreed with them? Huh.
If it bothers you so much, perhaps we should just lynch you so you don't have to worry about the game anymore?
I think when jerubbaal warned of mind games, he was referring to the fact that Azrael singed up to play.
I am so down with a stupidly fast day 1.
Unvote, Vote: Toastboy
I will also have limited internet access until Tuesday (moved to a new house) so I may be rather quiet.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
wow...I'm really not sure how to take this. I may not be the best at reading but from what I can tell Az was just using the DATBF phase to see if he could get a reaction ot of people...so far I haven't seen much.
At current I'll stick with a Vote: Skander for 3rd vote-ery. Toastboy hasn't made himself blatant but I'm not sure if getting the wagon rolling this quickly is good.
Currently Playing:
GBStandard - Golgari Safari MidrangeBG
RBWModern - Mardu PyromancerWBR
RLegacy - Good Old Fashioned BurnR
Clan Contest 3 Mafia - Mafia Co-MVP
Currently Playing:
GBStandard - Golgari Safari MidrangeBG
RBWModern - Mardu PyromancerWBR
RLegacy - Good Old Fashioned BurnR
Clan Contest 3 Mafia - Mafia Co-MVP
@Kraj: You may not like my post, but it is the sort of posts I make. I just post what I think and I go with the flow. Some people are analytical, but I prefer to keep a lot of my analysis to myself until the time is right.
Perhaps you should check back on that post. The most relevant part was that I didn't even see the case against Chris.
I think that toastboy is getting rather frustrated, but in my experience that can mean caught scum or overwhelmed town. I'm reserving judgment on him.
One thing that strikes me as majorly suspicious is Kraj's last post. He starts by saying he's happy with his kpaca vote, and finishes by voting for toastboy... Is this a joke? I think we're far enough out of random to deem it not to be, and I think toastboy has enough votes on him for this to be simple bandwagoning.
vote: kraj