nothing except the fact that I only have one vote. starting a bandwagon this early is not good townie play, and hopping on is even worse play. Kraj's 4th vote is more damning than skander's 3rd, so...yeah.
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 votes for kpaca because he thinks that one of kpaca's posts warranted the vote. Kraj later confirms that he is happy with his vote - on kpaca. And then he proceeds to vote Toastboy, who is unable to defend himself in the same post.
Why is it scummy for him vote for some one who is currently to defend themselves for a couple of days? Toastboy can just answer the accusations once he comes back.
Why is the fact that Kraj switched his vote from some one he was happy it was on to some one else in the same postscummy? It means the opposite for me.
Ah, I remember now. Good town position is probably a helpful clarifier there, though.
As opposed to what, though? Good scum position? If the assumption in mafia, particularly minis, is "everyone wants to look like a townie", what's the value of the added emphasis?
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.
*shrug*
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.
I just don't think it is random conversation, though. At the very least, it deserves more than a pass-over.
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 don't think it's "playing captain obvious" as it is a barn.
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.
That wasn't my intention; I wanted to defend the use of smilie-as-dialogue. Granted, the dog was rather subtle, but that was back when I thought you were trying to Cunning Plan them.
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.
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?
Xyre could you answer these questions? You didn't address it in your last post.
Toastboy hasn't made himself blatant but I'm not sure if getting the wagon rolling this quickly is good.
Wrong, he made his lack of forethought very blatant. His content was terrible. He wanted to contribute, and wasn't capable. But everybody needs to be townie. He might be trying to fit in, to avoid being mislynched. So that's a reason not to vote him, or at least a possible scenario. But if it wasn't a good enough reason, than any speed of wagon would be fine. So is the wagon valid or not?
Whoops. That could be. I haven't read any games of WoD as scum, whereas I've seen (and run) many games with WoD as town when he played like this.
See Insane Asylum, Basic 4: Billy Goat Mafia, or Hamlet Blind Mafia for games where I am mafia, also see Annorax's Star Trek Mafia for my play as an SK.
Seems like I tend not to live past the first couple of games, when I'm playing as Mafia.
@Kraj - I didn't detect the same "look at me I'm a helpful scum!" vibes from Az that I got from toastboy.
Well, I was hoping that Phantom would answer my question and Chris would respond again before I left but oh well. I think I have enough to analyze from Chris.
Kraj votes for kpaca because he thinks that one of kpaca's posts warranted the vote. Kraj later confirms that he is happy with his vote - on kpaca. And then he proceeds to vote Toastboy, who is unable to defend himself in the same post.
Most of his answer was repetition which is what I expected. However, he felt the need to add a previously unmentioned point (black writing). I think he did this because of
A) He originally meant this as a point but never expressed it in thread. I find this unlikely because when players generally have points to add they add them.
B) The point just occurred to him now. This I think is scummy because it indicates that the original attack wasn't very well thought out and he's just adding in details as he goes along.
C) By my asking him to explain why exactly he thought it was scummy, he felt that the attack was weak and made something new up to support it. This I also think is scummy.
Now for Xyre's answer to my question:
Whoops. That could be. I haven't read any games of WoD as scum, whereas I've seen (and run) many games with WoD as town when he played like this.
This seemed townie to me. He didn't try making stuff up to justify his position and he didn't overexaggerate on the potential mistake with smilies and an overkill promise to read all of WoD's games to fix it.
Now for my thoughts on Kraj switching his vote which he was happy about from Kpaca to Toast. It seemed townie to me. His switch was the mark of changing thoughts and opinions as he wrote the post. This to me indicates that his post was a genuine expression of his thoughts as they developed.
Can Chris and Phantom explain in detail why they think that Kraj switching votes is scummy? I would prefer that Chris answer first.
I had said in my earlier post that I intended on reserving judgment on toast. It was more that the vote was switched to a bandwagon vote on what I deemed a weak wagon than the mere act of switching it.
It's just something I noticed. As soon as a player under pressure isn't available for a few days it's extremely convenient to just say "I'm unhappy with the given responses. Lynchplskthx." and the lynch happens. I think that everyone should have a chance to answer to the points raised against him. It's not really scummy to vote when TB is away, it simply adds to what I think is suspicious behavior.
I'm a simple man. You're going to have to explain to me how asking for explanation to the phrase : (i'm paraphrasing here) "it's not scummy, but it's suspicious" is scummy.
I'm a simple man. You're going to have to explain to me how asking for explanation to the phrase : (i'm paraphrasing here) "it's not scummy, but it's suspicious" is scummy.
You should read that sentence again in detail. I think you'll see what you're missing.
I think WoD is misunderstanding AH and AH is misunderstanding Chris (and I'm the only one who understands everyone).
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?
Nah, Xyre's read was confirmed.
My point is that he's trying to read the actions of someone he's assuming is town. Trying to figure out what a townie is doing. And then sharing that publicly. I guarantee that figuring out what a strangely acting townies are up to is very high up on mafia players' priority list.
I'd really think Netfinity would be the next best choice over Xyre, or even Kraj. You're lack of concrete explanation behind your votes hurts me deeply.
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!
I'd really think Netfinity would be the next best choice over Xyre, or even Kraj. You're lack of concrete explanation behind your votes hurts me deeply.
I didn't mean to hurt you so deeply, Kpaca. *free hug*
Convenient that you didn't mention these things. Would you kindly address them now?
I think it was mostly the tone of the first line. It feels a bit like a barn. Looking back, though, I didn't see anything. It was this expectation that perhaps I might be wrong that led me to sit on the post.
nothing except the fact that I only have one vote. starting a bandwagon this early is not good townie play, and hopping on is even worse play. Kraj's 4th vote is more damning than skander's 3rd, so...yeah.
Starting a bandwagon this early is not good townie play, eh? How do you think serious discussion begins without a bandwagon? In fact, there's often little constructive discussion to be had before the first lynch occurs.
It's interesting how people have said my bandwagoning is scummy... when we don't know whether Toastboy is scum or not.
My point is that he's trying to read the actions of someone he's assuming is town. Trying to figure out what a townie is doing. And then sharing that publicly. I guarantee that figuring out what a strangely acting townies are up to is very high up on mafia players' priority list.
Feeling good about Azrael right now. Rather than support or shoot down my wagon, he sat back and watched reactions. I ought to have some comments on said reactions tomorrow.
Unvote
At the moment, I'm interested in those who came to my defense. Seems to me a townie would be more interested in what I had to say in response to my attackers.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
It's interesting how people have said my bandwagoning is scummy... when we don't know whether Toastboy is scum or not.
This snippet sticks out to me. I could do an exercise for kpaca points, but I'll just tell you instead.
That bandwagoning isn't any less scummy if Toastboy is scum. Bussing your buddy is a viable and useful strategy, as is wagoning a townie. The way you placed your vote and then said it was for reactions doesn't sit well with me, and the above statement appears to be an attempt to try a little to hard to win favor with the town.
unvote: vote Kraj.
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!
I'm not opposed to letting toastboy off the hook for the moment.
Vote Xyre.
I understand your reasons for voting for Xyre, but I am curious as to your insight on the Kraj case. I recall earlier that you opted to add him to your town list, and as I recall Kraj voted for Kpaca in the post after Kpaca said he was unsure of Kraj being added to the town list (telling? Maybe).
When I asked earlier if Kraj's vote was simple bandwagoning he said it was, and from his post on the last page he doesn't seem to think that's scummy, but I believe kpaca's post on this page is the best response to that. I think you'll find the reason for kraj's vote switch was as he said in the post he made it- he wants a lightning fast day one.
This snippet sticks out to me. I could do an exercise for kpaca points, but I'll just tell you instead.
That bandwagoning isn't any less scummy if Toastboy is scum. Bussing your buddy is a viable and useful strategy, as is wagoning a townie. The way you placed your vote and then said it was for reactions doesn't sit well with me, and the above statement appears to be an attempt to try a little to hard to win favor with the town.
unvote: vote Kraj.
How ironic, since appearing to try too hard is exactly what I felt was scummy about the post I voted you for, and several afterwards (including this one). For example, you point out every way in which my behavior could be indicative of scum, dismiss every notion that considers a town perspective on my behavior, and the reasons you offer are so vague (i.e., "doesn't sit right with you") that it's little better (perhaps even worse) than stating no reasons at all.
I think the 'bandwagoning' has different results with regards to my alignment: If I am scum, Kraj's vote put me on L-2 I think, which I think is a little too far for bussing: getting a buddy lynched is too far.
I understand your reasons for voting for Xyre, but I am curious as to your insight on the Kraj case. I recall earlier that you opted to add him to your town list, and as I recall Kraj voted for Kpaca in the post after Kpaca said he was unsure of Kraj being added to the town list (telling? Maybe).
His first-post joke-vote against WoD struck me as a form of townie humor, rather than mafia.
But as of his last two posts, I'm abandoning that read, and joining the wagon.
Quote from PhantomS »
When I asked earlier if Kraj's vote was simple bandwagoning he said it was, and from his post on the last page he doesn't seem to think that's scummy, but I believe kpaca's post on this page is the best response to that. I think you'll find the reason for kraj's vote switch was as he said in the post he made it- he wants a lightning fast day one.
The lightning-fast day/bandwagoning point against bunk is bunk. Don't take his surface motive at face value. Part of what Kraj was doing was setting up a trap, eliciting reactions. He says as much in his last two posts, and he's the calibre of player who won't accidentally put on a sandwich board with big, bold red letters screaming "VOTE FOR ME!", unless he means to.
Don't consider that evidence against him.
As for the things that do disturb me in his last two posts under substantial pressure, stay tuned below.
The thread really slowed down in my absence. It's ok, I brought booze...
Following your logic, it is impossible to be suspicious of more than one player at a time.
Starting a bandwagon this early is not good townie play, eh? How do you think serious discussion begins without a bandwagon? In fact, there's often little constructive discussion to be had before the first lynch occurs.
It's interesting how people have said my bandwagoning is scummy... when we don't know whether Toastboy is scum or not.
So you had like 5 days to reread a 4-page thread. And no follow up on this?
I'll take, "Vague and Unhelpful Answers" for $400, Alex.
Having set his trap and sprung it, we have an across-the-board, mildly sarcastic assault directed at the folks putting pressure on him.
Sarcasm isn't much of a tell on his own, but he's not even really engaging with the arguments against him here. On the argument that his vote-switch to Toastboy was bizarre (it was, although on purpose), he plays it off as though his behavior was perfectly normal and his attackers are overreacting.
It may be a bad point, but he takes a cheap stab instead of admitting the stunt was odd.
Then there's his comment about people seeing his bandwagon on Toasty was scummy, even though we don't know Toasty's alignment. Completely overlooks that the style of a post is a much better indicator of alignment than its actual effect.
Come on. We can't accuse anyone of being scummy before we know if the person they're attacking is scum? Please.
As a possible town explanation, maybe that comment is being generated out of Kraj hoping to gain reactions on two levels: reactions to himself, and information about Toastboy's alignment (who he does appear to suspect). Still, it's incredibly off-base.
Feeling good about Azrael right now. Rather than support or shoot down my wagon, he sat back and watched reactions. I ought to have some comments on said reactions tomorrow.
Unvote
At the moment, I'm interested in those who came to my defense. Seems to me a townie would be more interested in what I had to say in response to my attackers.
Up till now, we've just had some weird logic errors. But when we get to this point, we start getting some dodgy mindset tells.
This reaction looks canned. And by canned, I mean I think he was planning on making this post as soon as he voted for Toastboy. Going into the gambit, he was already planning on using it to launch counter-strikes; regardless of the style in which people attacked him.
I haven't seen any scum tells generated in the course of the attack on Kraj. Some useful town reactions perhaps, but no scum indicators. Nevertheless Kraj has already started auto-firing at everyone who took a piece out of him. There's no thinking-through who's been scummy here: he's just mindlessly retaliating against everyone who attacked him.
That's a scum-like defense against pressure, not a pro-town thinking process.
How ironic, since appearing to try too hard is exactly what I felt was scummy about the post I voted you for, and several afterwards (including this one). For example, you point out every way in which my behavior could be indicative of scum, dismiss every notion that considers a town perspective on my behavior, and the reasons you offer are so vague (i.e., "doesn't sit right with you") that it's little better (perhaps even worse) than stating no reasons at all.
Unvote, re-vote: kpaca
Whew. Look at that counter-attack. The language is so super-charged, it almost palpably sizzles. Rhetoric that strong doesn't indicate an analytical mindset, it indicates a fighting mentality.
Maybe a townie Kraj falls into a fighting mentality in this situation, but I'm inclined to read this as mafia pulling a gambit, and catching a little bit more heat from it than he expected. Instead of coolly presenting his explanation, with confidence in his ability to survive, he's seriously concerned by this pressure. I don't think a townie would be as seriously concerned, if he had a valid defense already prepared, and at least one analyst in-thread (me) who had already signalled that he recognized the gambit.
This reaction looks canned. And by canned, I mean I think he was planning on making this post as soon as he voted for Toastboy. Going into the gambit, he was already planning on using it to launch counter-strikes; regardless of the style in which people attacked him.
I haven't seen any scum tells generated in the course of the attack on Kraj. Some useful town reactions perhaps, but no scum indicators. Nevertheless Kraj has already started auto-firing at everyone who took a piece out of him. There's no thinking-through who's been scummy here: he's just mindlessly retaliating against everyone who attacked him.
I think you need to reread and re-evaluate. I noted interest in the people who came to my defense, not in who attacked me.
I expect your read on me to change based on that, but if it doesn't I'll gladly respond to the rest of your points.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
I think the 'bandwagoning' has different results with regards to my alignment: If I am scum, Kraj's vote put me on L-2 I think, which I think is a little too far for bussing: getting a buddy lynched is too far.
I'm suspicious of Netfinity for trying to latch onto Az's wagon early in what appeared to me to be a scummy fashion. I still feel the way Netfinity joined that wagon was scummy.
How ironic, since appearing to try too hard is exactly what I felt was scummy about the post I voted you for, and several afterwards (including this one). For example, you point out every way in which my behavior could be indicative of scum, dismiss every notion that considers a town perspective on my behavior, and the reasons you offer are so vague (i.e., "doesn't sit right with you") that it's little better (perhaps even worse) than stating no reasons at all.
Unvote, re-vote: kpaca
[/color][/font]
I'm aware of that. But apparently the subtelty is lost on you, since your comment on my logic similarly is not accurate at all.
Because I found kpaca scummy and felt the Toastboy wagon had value at the same time. I would think that was completely obvious.
I did consider you doing what you did as town, but decided not to post every time I though to myself "I don't think he's doing this as town", as I thought it obvious I didn't think you were working from a town perspective. I feel as if many of your accusations stem from me not being openly analytical.
I'm not/wasn't, I simply am not/wasn't outright against it as opposed to a couple players who were against your wagon simply because it was fast.
I think you need to reread and re-evaluate. I noted interest in the people who came to my defense, not in who attacked me.
I expect your read on me to change based on that, but if it doesn't I'll gladly respond to the rest of your points.
This post to me appears to be more of a smokescreen against Az and people who want may listen to Az, and less an actual defense against the meat of his points.
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!
I'm aware of that. However, your latest batch of responses were against your attackers, not your defenders.
Ah, I see. Your comments about my "canned" response and my "mindlessly auto-firing at my attackers" were not linked to each other; it read to me as that's where you were going.
In that case, let me point a couple things out. In the post where I'm "mindlessly auto-firing at my attackers", I addressed Chris. I did not insuate he is scummy at all, I just pointed out his logic error by overtly applying the same error.
I addressed Charm Master, whom I do think made a scummy reaction to my wagon by jumping on over a basic tell but using bad logic to justify it. You dislike the generalized comment that followed, which is fine by me, but it's unfair to overlook the specific reasoning I posted regarding Charm Master.
I addressed Xyre with an implication of suspicion even though he was one of the players expressing reservations about my wagon.
I addressed Wrath of Dog with an implication of suspicion even though he declined to jump on my wagon (though didn't openly defend me either).
I addressed you, whom I perceived to be getting what I was doing, with a specific reason why I felt your behavior was townish.
Notably I did not attack Phantom, who was one of the first players to vote for me and did so in exactly the fashion I expected a townie would.
In short, I don't think your assertion that I just mindlessly auto-fired against my attackers is accurate at all.
Sarcasm isn't much of a tell on his own, but he's not even really engaging with the arguments against him here. On the argument that his vote-switch to Toastboy was bizarre (it was, although on purpose), he plays it off as though his behavior was perfectly normal and his attackers are overreacting.
It may be a bad point, but he takes a cheap stab instead of admitting the stunt was odd.
Incorrect and correct. I'm not playing off my behavior as normal; that would be completely beside the point of making the play in the first place. But I do think I'm perfectly justified in asserting that my joining Toastboy's wagon isn't as scummy as some people are making it out to be, or if nothing else, not for the reasons they claim.
Then there's his comment about people seeing his bandwagon on Toasty was scummy, even though we don't know Toasty's alignment. Completely overlooks that the style of a post is a much better indicator of alignment than its actual effect.
This is partially fair, but my comment is still partially fair as well. If people think Toastboy is town then it's fair to suggest I was just adding fuel to his fast wagon for scummy purposes. But people who think Toastboy is scum and then accuse me of bussing him (as some people have done) need to examine the motivations for me doing so, which are really, really weak. That's why I have a problem with so strongly applying a generalized "bandwagoning" tell so early in the game.
Come on. We can't accuse anyone of being scummy before we know if the person they're attacking is scum? Please.
Shame on you. That's a big ol' strawman and you know it. Regarding the scumtell of bandwagoning, the alignment of the wagonee has a significant impact on the likely alignment of the wagoner. That assertion is a rather large leap from the sweeping generalization you just made.
Whew. Look at that counter-attack. The language is so super-charged, it almost palpably sizzles. Rhetoric that strong doesn't indicate an analytical mindset, it indicates a fighting mentality.
Hmmm. I can see what you mean by "super-charged language" but I don't really see how my comment is just rhetoric. I explained precisely what I found/find scummy about kpaca (and in turn explained my initial vote on him), and added specific reasons why I disliked his post: an analysis that assumed a scum motivation rather than showed a scum motivation, and that tossed on a vague emotional comment.
Maybe a townie Kraj falls into a fighting mentality in this situation, but I'm inclined to read this as mafia pulling a gambit, and catching a little bit more heat from it than he expected. Instead of coolly presenting his explanation, with confidence in his ability to survive, he's seriously concerned by this pressure. I don't think a townie would be as seriously concerned, if he had a valid defense already prepared, and at least one analyst in-thread (me) who had already signalled that he recognized the gambit.
Isn't cooly and confidently admitting to bandwagoning exactly how I responded to the first three votes put on me? Your issue seems to be that I later went back and called some of the attacks on me scummy. If I didn't do that, what's the point of evoking reactions in the first place? Or maybe you simply don't agree with the points I raised, which makes you suspicious of the sincerity of my analysis?
This also seems to be at odds with your read on my "canned" response. On the one hand you seem to think I had a response in mind from the beginning, and here you think my behavior indicates the opposite.
This post to me appears to be more of a smokescreen against Az and people who want may listen to Az, and less an actual defense against the meat of his points.
Or you could read the part where I said I would respond to his points if his position didn't change.
I addressed your first comment in my response to Azrael.
Yes, that's completely obvious. The only thing I still don't understand about it is why you said that you were happy with your vote on kpaca, if you intended to change it.
If you still don't understand what we agree is obvious, I don't know how I can explain it any better. All I can think of it that you expect that when composing my post and I decided to change my vote I would have gone back and removed my affirmation of the kpaca vote, whereas generally my style is to post my reactions chronologically.
Azrael says that this was intentional, so...what were you aiming for?
Evoking reactions. There's basically two approaches to playing the early stages of day 1: sit back and wait for others to make posts that you can react to, or do something to elicit reactions and generate discussion. As I noted above, Phantom reacted exactly how I expected a townie to react: saw classic scum tell, voted because of it, end of story. Other players piled on unnecessary extra reasons, some of which had very poor logic, and some players came to my defense rather than let me speak for myself, which indicates a potential desire to be on the right side of a mislynch.
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.
Town Azrael- obv Skander -inquisitive and curious ChrisXIV -At start, had read on scummish form of humor. Natural reaction to pressure.
? kpaca-overbroad strokes in voting rationales, but not too unnaturally. Wrath_of_Dog- Blase about netfinity. Disliked toastboy's superficial gut reads.
Toastboy- attempting to read me, superficial gut reads. Poser. Good reaction under pressure? Kraj - Poser gambit? Bad initial defense under pressure? Netfinity- weak vote against Chris for explaining why his own actions were scummy. Probing questions. Little bit of an odd defense of Kraj. Problematic Abandon Hope- Extremely low-content. Possibly thinking through reads. PhantomS Sort of picks up on xyre's awkwardness. Low content. Hanging back. Charm_Master3125 - very little serious content. Voted kraj for speed, overreliance on vote positioning to support case. Xyre - Little original content, awkward phrasing, poor wording-based argument against Skander based on unnatural reads. Plenty of clarification requests.
A review of the thread created more ambiguity in most of my reads rather than certainty, but it did reinforce my impression that Xyre is in his scum-mode this game. He does analysis, but not much original reasoning. He's made a case, but it was directed at a probable townie and incredibly slanted. I think he's primarily in coasting mode.
Is there something specific that distinguishes Xyre from AH for you? You've listed some general comments but can you point to the post(s) that gave you that read? In my read I thought both AH and Xyre were similarly quiet and reluctant to comment on things that most players were talking about. Also, you described Xyre's 'scum mode'; can you describe his townie play in contrast?
I thought Phantom's reaction to my switch to Toastboy was very indicative of townie. I'm curious what your take on it is.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
I voted kraj because while I was not directly opposed to the wagon, I was opposed to the speed at which it was growing. at that point a speed lynch was a very real threat and I felt it wasn't going to be good this early in the game.
Unvote
I see kraj has responded to any arguments put forth against him and they make sense IMO. I really haven't picked up much from anyone else but my mind has been elsewhere with school starting back up soonly. Apoligies.
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
I think the 'bandwagoning' has different results with regards to my alignment: If I am scum, Kraj's vote put me on L-2 I think, which I think is a little too far for bussing: getting a buddy lynched is too far.
Az's aforestated posing is present here, but it's mostly the faulty logic in that last part that has me thinking something is awry.
I'm going to be reading this over a little more, mostly looking into Xyre, Netfinity and toastboy.
CharmMaster can you respond to AH's question to you?
I hadn't read much into the validity of the toast wagon, I was merely concerned with the speed thereof. town led speed-lynches should be reserved for slam dunks like when a confirmed cop finds a mafia member or someone makes an irrefutable counterclaim.any other time it robs the town of valuable discussion that might lead to a break much later down the road.
Looking back I can't say it was unwarranted but I certainly didn't think it should have been that quick,. hence the vote.
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
Alright, I'm going to go through the Kraj-wagon posts beginning on post 110.
110: The last part is a puzzler. It's clear that the quoted part (Az's "speed lynch" comment) is sarcastic, on several levels - form, Az's experience level, etc. The question then becomes whether Kraj is also trying to be sarcastic and failing or trying to seriously wagon. Knowing Kraj, I doubt that his vote here was intended to be serious - I can't think anyone would be dense enough to think Az was genuinely pushing a speed-lynch. But why, then, vote? It's effectively sarcastic response combined with genuine action, and is thus disjoint. It's entirely possible Kraj was trying to make a joke at absolutely the wrong time, but I can't shake the notion that he could have just skipped the vote entirely.
Or, in short, this is one of those posts that is hard to analyze by looking at rationale, because it seems irrational. My gut says scummy, though, but not for the bandwagoning - rather, for the disparate notions of the sarcastic response and the genuine vote.
111-112: This post isn't really scummy as much as it's rather empty. He poses the problem of Az's DATBF post without really considering how it factors into the subsequent votes by the players. What's bothersome about this episode is I can't shake the thought, despite what I said above, that at least one person on the wagon probably thought Az was being genuine, assumptions aside. Skander's post provides some analysis, though, whereas Kraj's is just a wagon vote - and I believe Kraj isn't dense enough to think Az wasn't joking. In other words, he may very well have unconsciously fallen into Az's trap, despite that not being the intention of Az's trap in the first place.
That's a bit convoluted, so I'll summarize: Kraj's post voting for Toastboy features a false reaction (the sarcastic comment) followed by a genuine reaction (the vote). One way to explain this is Kraj seeing the sarcasm but not seeing the trap and getting provoked into a "knowing vote", the kind of thing a scum would make (versus either genuine belief, or a genuine response and vote, or utterly sarcastic response, without a vote). I think this conclusion is supported by Az's last line, about WoLGing someone. Anyone voting for Toast in that situation is probably either scum or dumb, and the separate responses by Kraj suggest the former more so than the latter.
And now we get into the changing-targets-in-mid-post bit. This doesn't bother me as much - it suggests a player who's going through posts without considering later context, something I've been known to do, or editing. It is questionable, not scummy.
I need to review some more, but I've run out of time and would rather not dispose of this/put it in a notepad document and post it later. I think there's enough here to get the ball rolling.
Alright, that distraction took less time than I'd expected.
If anyone's puzzled by the above, feel free to ask questions. I recognize it can be a bit choppy.
117: I don't understand his reaction to Chris's post. Doesn't respond to anything other than "yeah, so?"
Then we get the Netfinity-Chris debacle. I don't think this reveals anything about Kraj, since I don't think the opinion-changing is scummy, so I'm going to move on.
139: Az is rather pleased with himself, though I rather wish he'd examine how the trap worked rather than just giving himself a pat on the back. This is something that's been nagging me about Az's play this game - it feels like he's pulling more strings than he's creating, expecting his suspicions to be filled in later and skipping over important steps of analysis. This doesn't mean I think he's scum - I've seen him play this way before, and if memory serves, he was town in that game. It's just kind of tiresome.
150: First quote: same changing-targets issue.
Second quote: I really hate the "bandwagons are important so I am justified in bandwagoning" justification that always crops up. Yes, at a certain point additional analysis becomes futile because it is redundant; but at the same time, Kraj, you provided no analysis, you just hopped right in. For one, this isn't something I'm used to seeing from you, which automatically makes me wonder; furthermore, you dismiss constructive discussion whatsoever with the "there's often little constructive discussion to be had before the first lynch occurs" comment, which is very scummy. Just because Day 1 lynches are sometimes based less on the town's work than on bad scum screwing up doesn't mean there is little constructive discussion or that such discussion is useless. The fact that you assert (implicitly for the latter) both of these makes me very nervous. And there's also the dismissive quality of the latter part. Overall, this part probably deserves a vote, but I'll save that for the end.
Fourth quote: How so?
Fifth quote and subsequent: The quote itself isn't really an issue here. I'm more concerned with the non sequitur into the unvote, which feels reactionary and defensive. This is doubly true with Kraj's responses to criticisms, which stand by his bandwagoning. So why unvote, unless one wants to portray a townie (defending his/her actions) while stepping away from the violation? A townie here would go in one direction or the other, much in the same way a townie would provide a straight genuine or straight false reaction to the fake suggestion of a speed lynch. This is the second time, in other words, that Kraj has said one thing and done another, and I theorize that this mixed-approach tactic is a scum tell.
155: Immediately gets back on kpaca, which is quite interesting - not a single mention of screwing up on Toast! The implication of "re-vote" to me is "I am going to pretend that nothing happened viz-a-viz Toastboy and go back to the blue chip suspect".
158: The point is that the implication of "I want to know who helped me" is that it implies, as the reverse of, "I'm interested in dealing with those who screwed me".
As for Kraj's reactions to Az's points, I think they're important, but right now I want to know what he has to say here, as that response and reaction would factor into any analysis of those points.
And it is the sort of post I find scummy.
I thought it obvious that's precisely what it is.
BTW, so is this:
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
nothing except the fact that I only have one vote. starting a bandwagon this early is not good townie play, and hopping on is even worse play. Kraj's 4th vote is more damning than skander's 3rd, so...yeah.
Currently Playing:
GBStandard - Golgari Safari MidrangeBG
RBWModern - Mardu PyromancerWBR
RLegacy - Good Old Fashioned BurnR
Clan Contest 3 Mafia - Mafia Co-MVP
Why is it scummy for him vote for some one who is currently to defend themselves for a couple of days? Toastboy can just answer the accusations once he comes back.
Why is the fact that Kraj switched his vote from some one he was happy it was on to some one else in the same postscummy? It means the opposite for me.
Why is it scummy for him to vote for someone who is currently unable...
*cracks knuckles*
As opposed to what, though? Good scum position? If the assumption in mafia, particularly minis, is "everyone wants to look like a townie", what's the value of the added emphasis?
*shrug*
I just don't think it is random conversation, though. At the very least, it deserves more than a pass-over.
I don't think it's "playing captain obvious" as it is a barn.
That wasn't my intention; I wanted to defend the use of smilie-as-dialogue. Granted, the dog was rather subtle, but that was back when I thought you were trying to Cunning Plan them.
Looking back at the post in question, the few minor things I noticed can easily be given over to newb behavior.
As Skander already pointed out: Random was over for some time already. But you ignored what was going on and continued.
FoS Xyre
Your font makes me sad.
So I was DATBF*. What's your point?
* dicking around to be funny
Ah. Okay then.
I even brought my own rope!
The Kraj wagon has grown really fast. I need more time to look over Kraj's and the subsequent posts.
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
Xyre could you answer these questions? You didn't address it in your last post.
Whoops. That could be. I haven't read any games of WoD as scum, whereas I've seen (and run) many games with WoD as town when he played like this.
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
Seems like I tend not to live past the first couple of games, when I'm playing as Mafia.
@Kraj - I didn't detect the same "look at me I'm a helpful scum!" vibes from Az that I got from toastboy.
Most of his answer was repetition which is what I expected. However, he felt the need to add a previously unmentioned point (black writing). I think he did this because of
A) He originally meant this as a point but never expressed it in thread. I find this unlikely because when players generally have points to add they add them.
B) The point just occurred to him now. This I think is scummy because it indicates that the original attack wasn't very well thought out and he's just adding in details as he goes along.
C) By my asking him to explain why exactly he thought it was scummy, he felt that the attack was weak and made something new up to support it. This I also think is scummy.
Now for Xyre's answer to my question:
This seemed townie to me. He didn't try making stuff up to justify his position and he didn't overexaggerate on the potential mistake with smilies and an overkill promise to read all of WoD's games to fix it.
Now for my thoughts on Kraj switching his vote which he was happy about from Kpaca to Toast. It seemed townie to me. His switch was the mark of changing thoughts and opinions as he wrote the post. This to me indicates that his post was a genuine expression of his thoughts as they developed.
I had said in my earlier post that I intended on reserving judgment on toast. It was more that the vote was switched to a bandwagon vote on what I deemed a weak wagon than the mere act of switching it.
Convenient that you didn't mention these things. Would you kindly address them now?
Not.
FOS Abandon Hope.
He already answered your question. The voteswitch is scummy enough.
You should read that sentence again in detail. I think you'll see what you're missing.
I think WoD is misunderstanding AH and AH is misunderstanding Chris (and I'm the only one who understands everyone).
AH read this as" "It's not scummy to vote TB but it is suspicious behaviour" ('really' being a qualifier of 'not').
Chris wrote it as: "It's not very scummy to vote TB but it is a little scummy." ('really' being a qualifier of 'scummy').
Nah, Xyre's read was confirmed.
My point is that he's trying to read the actions of someone he's assuming is town. Trying to figure out what a townie is doing. And then sharing that publicly. I guarantee that figuring out what a strangely acting townies are up to is very high up on mafia players' priority list.
Vote Xyre.
Old reasons.
I didn't mean to hurt you so deeply, Kpaca. *free hug*
I already said I thought that Az was trying to set up a cunning plan. The laughing dog was intended to be acknowledgment. Obviously, I was wrong.
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
I think it was mostly the tone of the first line. It feels a bit like a barn. Looking back, though, I didn't see anything. It was this expectation that perhaps I might be wrong that led me to sit on the post.
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
The thread really slowed down in my absence. It's ok, I brought booze...
Following your logic, it is impossible to be suspicious of more than one player at a time.
Starting a bandwagon this early is not good townie play, eh? How do you think serious discussion begins without a bandwagon? In fact, there's often little constructive discussion to be had before the first lynch occurs.
It's interesting how people have said my bandwagoning is scummy... when we don't know whether Toastboy is scum or not.
So you had like 5 days to reread a 4-page thread. And no follow up on this?
I'll take, "Vague and Unhelpful Answers" for $400, Alex.
Feeling good about Azrael right now. Rather than support or shoot down my wagon, he sat back and watched reactions. I ought to have some comments on said reactions tomorrow.
Unvote
At the moment, I'm interested in those who came to my defense. Seems to me a townie would be more interested in what I had to say in response to my attackers.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
This snippet sticks out to me. I could do an exercise for kpaca points, but I'll just tell you instead.
That bandwagoning isn't any less scummy if Toastboy is scum. Bussing your buddy is a viable and useful strategy, as is wagoning a townie. The way you placed your vote and then said it was for reactions doesn't sit well with me, and the above statement appears to be an attempt to try a little to hard to win favor with the town.
unvote: vote Kraj.
I understand your reasons for voting for Xyre, but I am curious as to your insight on the Kraj case. I recall earlier that you opted to add him to your town list, and as I recall Kraj voted for Kpaca in the post after Kpaca said he was unsure of Kraj being added to the town list (telling? Maybe).
When I asked earlier if Kraj's vote was simple bandwagoning he said it was, and from his post on the last page he doesn't seem to think that's scummy, but I believe kpaca's post on this page is the best response to that. I think you'll find the reason for kraj's vote switch was as he said in the post he made it- he wants a lightning fast day one.
How ironic, since appearing to try too hard is exactly what I felt was scummy about the post I voted you for, and several afterwards (including this one). For example, you point out every way in which my behavior could be indicative of scum, dismiss every notion that considers a town perspective on my behavior, and the reasons you offer are so vague (i.e., "doesn't sit right with you") that it's little better (perhaps even worse) than stating no reasons at all.
Unvote, re-vote: kpaca
I'm aware of that. But apparently the subtelty is lost on you, since your comment on my logic similarly is not accurate at all.
Because I found kpaca scummy and felt the Toastboy wagon had value at the same time. I would think that was completely obvious.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
Message to scumbuddies: Please don't lynch me.
His first-post joke-vote against WoD struck me as a form of townie humor, rather than mafia.
But as of his last two posts, I'm abandoning that read, and joining the wagon.
The lightning-fast day/bandwagoning point against bunk is bunk. Don't take his surface motive at face value. Part of what Kraj was doing was setting up a trap, eliciting reactions. He says as much in his last two posts, and he's the calibre of player who won't accidentally put on a sandwich board with big, bold red letters screaming "VOTE FOR ME!", unless he means to.
Don't consider that evidence against him.
As for the things that do disturb me in his last two posts under substantial pressure, stay tuned below.
Having set his trap and sprung it, we have an across-the-board, mildly sarcastic assault directed at the folks putting pressure on him.
Sarcasm isn't much of a tell on his own, but he's not even really engaging with the arguments against him here. On the argument that his vote-switch to Toastboy was bizarre (it was, although on purpose), he plays it off as though his behavior was perfectly normal and his attackers are overreacting.
It may be a bad point, but he takes a cheap stab instead of admitting the stunt was odd.
Then there's his comment about people seeing his bandwagon on Toasty was scummy, even though we don't know Toasty's alignment. Completely overlooks that the style of a post is a much better indicator of alignment than its actual effect.
Come on. We can't accuse anyone of being scummy before we know if the person they're attacking is scum? Please.
As a possible town explanation, maybe that comment is being generated out of Kraj hoping to gain reactions on two levels: reactions to himself, and information about Toastboy's alignment (who he does appear to suspect). Still, it's incredibly off-base.
Up till now, we've just had some weird logic errors. But when we get to this point, we start getting some dodgy mindset tells.
This reaction looks canned. And by canned, I mean I think he was planning on making this post as soon as he voted for Toastboy. Going into the gambit, he was already planning on using it to launch counter-strikes; regardless of the style in which people attacked him.
I haven't seen any scum tells generated in the course of the attack on Kraj. Some useful town reactions perhaps, but no scum indicators. Nevertheless Kraj has already started auto-firing at everyone who took a piece out of him. There's no thinking-through who's been scummy here: he's just mindlessly retaliating against everyone who attacked him.
That's a scum-like defense against pressure, not a pro-town thinking process.
Whew. Look at that counter-attack. The language is so super-charged, it almost palpably sizzles. Rhetoric that strong doesn't indicate an analytical mindset, it indicates a fighting mentality.
Maybe a townie Kraj falls into a fighting mentality in this situation, but I'm inclined to read this as mafia pulling a gambit, and catching a little bit more heat from it than he expected. Instead of coolly presenting his explanation, with confidence in his ability to survive, he's seriously concerned by this pressure. I don't think a townie would be as seriously concerned, if he had a valid defense already prepared, and at least one analyst in-thread (me) who had already signalled that he recognized the gambit.
Consider my vote on Kraj.
Requesting vote-count.
I'm not/wasn't, I simply am not/wasn't outright against it as opposed to a couple players who were against your wagon simply because it was fast.
I think you need to reread and re-evaluate. I noted interest in the people who came to my defense, not in who attacked me.
I expect your read on me to change based on that, but if it doesn't I'll gladly respond to the rest of your points.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
I'm aware of that. However, your latest batch of responses were against your attackers, not your defenders.
I'm suspicious of Netfinity for trying to latch onto Az's wagon early in what appeared to me to be a scummy fashion. I still feel the way Netfinity joined that wagon was scummy.
I did consider you doing what you did as town, but decided not to post every time I though to myself "I don't think he's doing this as town", as I thought it obvious I didn't think you were working from a town perspective. I feel as if many of your accusations stem from me not being openly analytical.
This post to me appears to be more of a smokescreen against Az and people who want may listen to Az, and less an actual defense against the meat of his points.
Ah, I see. Your comments about my "canned" response and my "mindlessly auto-firing at my attackers" were not linked to each other; it read to me as that's where you were going.
In that case, let me point a couple things out. In the post where I'm "mindlessly auto-firing at my attackers", I addressed Chris. I did not insuate he is scummy at all, I just pointed out his logic error by overtly applying the same error.
I addressed Charm Master, whom I do think made a scummy reaction to my wagon by jumping on over a basic tell but using bad logic to justify it. You dislike the generalized comment that followed, which is fine by me, but it's unfair to overlook the specific reasoning I posted regarding Charm Master.
I addressed Xyre with an implication of suspicion even though he was one of the players expressing reservations about my wagon.
I addressed Wrath of Dog with an implication of suspicion even though he declined to jump on my wagon (though didn't openly defend me either).
I addressed you, whom I perceived to be getting what I was doing, with a specific reason why I felt your behavior was townish.
Notably I did not attack Phantom, who was one of the first players to vote for me and did so in exactly the fashion I expected a townie would.
In short, I don't think your assertion that I just mindlessly auto-fired against my attackers is accurate at all.
Other responses:
Incorrect and correct. I'm not playing off my behavior as normal; that would be completely beside the point of making the play in the first place. But I do think I'm perfectly justified in asserting that my joining Toastboy's wagon isn't as scummy as some people are making it out to be, or if nothing else, not for the reasons they claim.
This is partially fair, but my comment is still partially fair as well. If people think Toastboy is town then it's fair to suggest I was just adding fuel to his fast wagon for scummy purposes. But people who think Toastboy is scum and then accuse me of bussing him (as some people have done) need to examine the motivations for me doing so, which are really, really weak. That's why I have a problem with so strongly applying a generalized "bandwagoning" tell so early in the game.
Shame on you. That's a big ol' strawman and you know it. Regarding the scumtell of bandwagoning, the alignment of the wagonee has a significant impact on the likely alignment of the wagoner. That assertion is a rather large leap from the sweeping generalization you just made.
Hmmm. I can see what you mean by "super-charged language" but I don't really see how my comment is just rhetoric. I explained precisely what I found/find scummy about kpaca (and in turn explained my initial vote on him), and added specific reasons why I disliked his post: an analysis that assumed a scum motivation rather than showed a scum motivation, and that tossed on a vague emotional comment.
Isn't cooly and confidently admitting to bandwagoning exactly how I responded to the first three votes put on me? Your issue seems to be that I later went back and called some of the attacks on me scummy. If I didn't do that, what's the point of evoking reactions in the first place? Or maybe you simply don't agree with the points I raised, which makes you suspicious of the sincerity of my analysis?
This also seems to be at odds with your read on my "canned" response. On the one hand you seem to think I had a response in mind from the beginning, and here you think my behavior indicates the opposite.
Or you could read the part where I said I would respond to his points if his position didn't change.
I addressed your first comment in my response to Azrael.
If you still don't understand what we agree is obvious, I don't know how I can explain it any better. All I can think of it that you expect that when composing my post and I decided to change my vote I would have gone back and removed my affirmation of the kpaca vote, whereas generally my style is to post my reactions chronologically.
Evoking reactions. There's basically two approaches to playing the early stages of day 1: sit back and wait for others to make posts that you can react to, or do something to elicit reactions and generate discussion. As I noted above, Phantom reacted exactly how I expected a townie to react: saw classic scum tell, voted because of it, end of story. Other players piled on unnecessary extra reasons, some of which had very poor logic, and some players came to my defense rather than let me speak for myself, which indicates a potential desire to be on the right side of a mislynch.
I'm not sure what you're asking here.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
No, I wasn't talking about two different things. Looking at the people who came to my defense is part of looking at the reactions to my vote.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
Kraj - 4 (CM, PhantomS, Chris, kpaca)
Toastboy - 2 (WoD, Skander)
kpaca - 2 (Toastboy, Kraj)
Chris - 1 (Netfinity)
7 to lynch
sorry bout the lag, busy weekend. I'll try to have one of these up approx. every other page.
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.
We have multiple mediocre wagons at the moment.
I forgot. Sorry. I have a party to go to, but I'll try to reread that part of the thread tonight/tomorrow at the latest.
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
Azrael- obv
Skander -inquisitive and curious
ChrisXIV -At start, had read on scummish form of humor. Natural reaction to pressure.
?
kpaca-overbroad strokes in voting rationales, but not too unnaturally.
Wrath_of_Dog- Blase about netfinity. Disliked toastboy's superficial gut reads.
Toastboy- attempting to read me, superficial gut reads. Poser. Good reaction under pressure?
Kraj - Poser gambit? Bad initial defense under pressure?
Netfinity- weak vote against Chris for explaining why his own actions were scummy. Probing questions. Little bit of an odd defense of Kraj.
Problematic
Abandon Hope- Extremely low-content. Possibly thinking through reads.
PhantomS Sort of picks up on xyre's awkwardness. Low content. Hanging back.
Charm_Master3125 - very little serious content. Voted kraj for speed, overreliance on vote positioning to support case.
Xyre - Little original content, awkward phrasing, poor wording-based argument against Skander based on unnatural reads. Plenty of clarification requests.
A review of the thread created more ambiguity in most of my reads rather than certainty, but it did reinforce my impression that Xyre is in his scum-mode this game. He does analysis, but not much original reasoning. He's made a case, but it was directed at a probable townie and incredibly slanted. I think he's primarily in coasting mode.
Vote Xyre.
I thought Phantom's reaction to my switch to Toastboy was very indicative of townie. I'm curious what your take on it is.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
Unvote
I see kraj has responded to any arguments put forth against him and they make sense IMO. I really haven't picked up much from anyone else but my mind has been elsewhere with school starting back up soonly. Apoligies.
Currently Playing:
GBStandard - Golgari Safari MidrangeBG
RBWModern - Mardu PyromancerWBR
RLegacy - Good Old Fashioned BurnR
Clan Contest 3 Mafia - Mafia Co-MVP
CharmMaster can you respond to AH's question to you?
kpaca is most likely town unless he has recently completely changed his scum playstyle.
This post doesn't sit well with me:
Az's aforestated posing is present here, but it's mostly the faulty logic in that last part that has me thinking something is awry.
I'm going to be reading this over a little more, mostly looking into Xyre, Netfinity and toastboy.
I hadn't read much into the validity of the toast wagon, I was merely concerned with the speed thereof. town led speed-lynches should be reserved for slam dunks like when a confirmed cop finds a mafia member or someone makes an irrefutable counterclaim.any other time it robs the town of valuable discussion that might lead to a break much later down the road.
Looking back I can't say it was unwarranted but I certainly didn't think it should have been that quick,. hence the vote.
Currently Playing:
GBStandard - Golgari Safari MidrangeBG
RBWModern - Mardu PyromancerWBR
RLegacy - Good Old Fashioned BurnR
Clan Contest 3 Mafia - Mafia Co-MVP
110: The last part is a puzzler. It's clear that the quoted part (Az's "speed lynch" comment) is sarcastic, on several levels - form, Az's experience level, etc. The question then becomes whether Kraj is also trying to be sarcastic and failing or trying to seriously wagon. Knowing Kraj, I doubt that his vote here was intended to be serious - I can't think anyone would be dense enough to think Az was genuinely pushing a speed-lynch. But why, then, vote? It's effectively sarcastic response combined with genuine action, and is thus disjoint. It's entirely possible Kraj was trying to make a joke at absolutely the wrong time, but I can't shake the notion that he could have just skipped the vote entirely.
Or, in short, this is one of those posts that is hard to analyze by looking at rationale, because it seems irrational. My gut says scummy, though, but not for the bandwagoning - rather, for the disparate notions of the sarcastic response and the genuine vote.
111-112: This post isn't really scummy as much as it's rather empty. He poses the problem of Az's DATBF post without really considering how it factors into the subsequent votes by the players. What's bothersome about this episode is I can't shake the thought, despite what I said above, that at least one person on the wagon probably thought Az was being genuine, assumptions aside. Skander's post provides some analysis, though, whereas Kraj's is just a wagon vote - and I believe Kraj isn't dense enough to think Az wasn't joking. In other words, he may very well have unconsciously fallen into Az's trap, despite that not being the intention of Az's trap in the first place.
That's a bit convoluted, so I'll summarize: Kraj's post voting for Toastboy features a false reaction (the sarcastic comment) followed by a genuine reaction (the vote). One way to explain this is Kraj seeing the sarcasm but not seeing the trap and getting provoked into a "knowing vote", the kind of thing a scum would make (versus either genuine belief, or a genuine response and vote, or utterly sarcastic response, without a vote). I think this conclusion is supported by Az's last line, about WoLGing someone. Anyone voting for Toast in that situation is probably either scum or dumb, and the separate responses by Kraj suggest the former more so than the latter.
And now we get into the changing-targets-in-mid-post bit. This doesn't bother me as much - it suggests a player who's going through posts without considering later context, something I've been known to do, or editing. It is questionable, not scummy.
I need to review some more, but I've run out of time and would rather not dispose of this/put it in a notepad document and post it later. I think there's enough here to get the ball rolling.
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
If anyone's puzzled by the above, feel free to ask questions. I recognize it can be a bit choppy.
117: I don't understand his reaction to Chris's post. Doesn't respond to anything other than "yeah, so?"
Then we get the Netfinity-Chris debacle. I don't think this reveals anything about Kraj, since I don't think the opinion-changing is scummy, so I'm going to move on.
139: Az is rather pleased with himself, though I rather wish he'd examine how the trap worked rather than just giving himself a pat on the back. This is something that's been nagging me about Az's play this game - it feels like he's pulling more strings than he's creating, expecting his suspicions to be filled in later and skipping over important steps of analysis. This doesn't mean I think he's scum - I've seen him play this way before, and if memory serves, he was town in that game. It's just kind of tiresome.
150: First quote: same changing-targets issue.
Second quote: I really hate the "bandwagons are important so I am justified in bandwagoning" justification that always crops up. Yes, at a certain point additional analysis becomes futile because it is redundant; but at the same time, Kraj, you provided no analysis, you just hopped right in. For one, this isn't something I'm used to seeing from you, which automatically makes me wonder; furthermore, you dismiss constructive discussion whatsoever with the "there's often little constructive discussion to be had before the first lynch occurs" comment, which is very scummy. Just because Day 1 lynches are sometimes based less on the town's work than on bad scum screwing up doesn't mean there is little constructive discussion or that such discussion is useless. The fact that you assert (implicitly for the latter) both of these makes me very nervous. And there's also the dismissive quality of the latter part. Overall, this part probably deserves a vote, but I'll save that for the end.
Fourth quote: How so?
Fifth quote and subsequent: The quote itself isn't really an issue here. I'm more concerned with the non sequitur into the unvote, which feels reactionary and defensive. This is doubly true with Kraj's responses to criticisms, which stand by his bandwagoning. So why unvote, unless one wants to portray a townie (defending his/her actions) while stepping away from the violation? A townie here would go in one direction or the other, much in the same way a townie would provide a straight genuine or straight false reaction to the fake suggestion of a speed lynch. This is the second time, in other words, that Kraj has said one thing and done another, and I theorize that this mixed-approach tactic is a scum tell.
155: Immediately gets back on kpaca, which is quite interesting - not a single mention of screwing up on Toast! The implication of "re-vote" to me is "I am going to pretend that nothing happened viz-a-viz Toastboy and go back to the blue chip suspect".
158: The point is that the implication of "I want to know who helped me" is that it implies, as the reverse of, "I'm interested in dealing with those who screwed me".
As for Kraj's reactions to Az's points, I think they're important, but right now I want to know what he has to say here, as that response and reaction would factor into any analysis of those points.
Vote Kraj
at the speed everyone backed away from his wagon.
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