I agree with Az that Xyre's case on WoD is forced especially after considering the fact that Xyre called at least one of WoD's posts scummy then when much earlier he had read that exact same post as town citing it as a WoD like thing to do. And then he ended his cases saying that WoD was acting unWoD-like. I have some more to say but enough time. I'll try to post later.
I'm astounded you didn't vote for me earlier, if that's the case.
There's an important distinction between abnormal town behavior and normal scum behavior. I've found it useful to look at both before laying into someone. Would you disagree?
Xyre, if you're looking to attack someone for not going into detail...
The problem is you have yet to adopt a proposition.
To seize back the legal metaphor, when a plaintiff files a complaint, they lay out their initial case in only the most basic terms. Then the defendant writes an answer, which responds in kind. From there, the two parties delve into greater detail.
You now know what my beefs are in basic terms. I don't know what your defense or affirmative defenses might be. But knowing whether or not you can effectively state an explanation may be sufficient evidence to satisfy me.
Our job here is to assess credibility, not necessarily to win dueling logical propositions. That fundamentally alters the burden of proof. A jury need not always hear all that the lawyers have to say before they can reach an appropriate verdict.
The problem is you have yet to adopt a proposition.
To seize back the legal metaphor, when a plaintiff files a complaint, they lay out their initial case in only the most basic terms. Then the defendant writes an answer, which responds in kind. From there, the two parties delve into greater detail.
You now know what my beefs are in basic terms. I don't know what your defense or affirmative defenses might be. But knowing whether or not you can effectively state an explanation may be sufficient evidence to satisfy me.
Our job here is to assess credibility, not necessarily to win dueling logical propositions. That fundamentally alters the burden of proof. A jury need not always hear all that the lawyers have to say before they can reach an appropriate verdict.
Problems with the above:
1) I'm not the proponent; I'm the defendant. "Innocent until proven guilty" means the burden of proof is on he who accuses of guilt - in this case, you - and my burden is merely to refute that accusation.
2) Re: "complaints", it depends on what frame you're arguing in - criminal or civil. But both require minimum burdens of proof at the introductory level, whether in the original indictment in the former or the complaint filing in the latter. A mere "J'accuse!" is insufficient outside 19th century French politics.
2.2) Notably, I've asked you for a greater analysis of your original statement to no avail. Why is that, and why is this argument much more productive than that one?
3) The sentence in red is silly on several levels. Even outside the judicial realm, are you suggesting it's justified to not hear the full case before making decisions? If so, why are you even asking me for these answers, if you're merely trying to prove my guilt? If I wasn't confident about your alignment, my eyebrows would be having a tea party with my hair right now.
Problems with the above:
1) I'm not the proponent; I'm the defendant.
Mm hmm. That's my point. I've filed my complaint. Where's your answer?
Quote from Xyre »
2) Re: "complaints", it depends on what frame you're arguing in - criminal or civil. But both require minimum burdens of proof at the introductory level, whether in the original indictment in the former or the complaint filing in the latter.
Yes, the courts require "a short, plain statement of the facts". Which I've provided. *taps foot*
But apparently the threshold burden of proof for the honorable court of Xyre-mafia is more demanding than the U.S. legal system...
Quote from Xyre »
2.2) Notably, I've asked you for a greater analysis of your original statement to no avail. Why is that, and why is this argument much more productive than that one?
I've identified possible problem areas in your posting. I cannot "prove" that you're guilty until you come out with a defense. This is a battle over mens rea, your mental state. I can't prove that you're lying about your mental state (insomuch as the word proof is applicable to mens rea) until you say what your mental state was!!!
Quote from Xyre »
3) The sentence in red is silly on several levels. Even outside the judicial realm, are you suggesting it's justified to not hear the full case before making decisions? If so, why are you even asking me for these answers, if you're merely trying to prove my guilt? If I wasn't confident about your alignment, my eyebrows would be having a tea party with my hair right now.
Yes, when what is being assessed is credibility, not logic, it may be appropriate to reach conclusions prior to the conclusion of the argument. If it only takes you ten minutes to figure out that one of the parties is blatantly lying, you're not required to suspend disbelief for the remaining three to four hours of argument.
And Xyre comes around the left corner making silly distracting arguments about actual legal terms!!!! How will Az and the lynchwagon recover from this shocking turn of events!!!!! Hurry up and get your bets in!
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!
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.
I've been skimming along with this game on a pretty regular basis, so I have an idea what's going on. I'll do a complete read-through and offer my insights once it's complete.
I was hoping for something more recent than Harry Potter, especially because I died shortly after you replaced in.
Sorry. After HP I had an absurdly long string of scum games: Final Fantasy, Smalltown, Fairy Tale, Dictionary, Persona. In newbie 20 I was a survivor. That brings us to current games in progress. Feel free to take a look at Inheritance, though that game is so nuts I'd be surprised if you got a useful read. (I'm Ash and joined the game night 1. Ignore day 1, for the sake of your sanity.)
However, the argument with Az has given me pause for thought. Sure, the tone of frustration is scummy and Az arguments are well-constructed, but I can't shake the feeling that a scum simply would react with the level of frustration and open emotion that Xyre is.
Could you please clarify this? I'm really confused by your wording.
Pages 19-20: We find Xyre actively trying to push a case against myself via discussion following a PBPA. After his response to my first response I didn't see a lot of merit to his case, nor did I see anybody else that cared to hear much about it so I decided to test something. What follows really interests me. In 298 we find my name on Xyre's short list of suspicious folk. On page 21 I made several posts without giving any mention to Xyre's case, nor posting much content whatsoever. If anything this should have caused Xyre to push his case harder against me, instead we find him battling Azrael the entire time without any additional pressure being added to him.
So what causes a player to drop the case on the player they currently find most suspicious? It can only mean that they don't especially care who is lynched. Who doesn't especially care who is lynched? Why, that would be scum.
What causes a player to argue to no end to clear their name without receiving additional pressure? I believe this to be even more telling than my first point. Such high concern with clearing one's name is textbook scum.
Now, I'm already voting Xyre, so there is no need for bolded text here, but I feel very confident in this vote after the past several pages.
Pages 19-20: We find Xyre actively trying to push a case against myself via discussion following a PBPA. After his response to my first response I didn't see a lot of merit to his case, nor did I see anybody else that cared to hear much about it so I decided to test something. What follows really interests me. In 298 we find my name on Xyre's short list of suspicious folk. On page 21 I made several posts without giving any mention to Xyre's case, nor posting much content whatsoever. If anything this should have caused Xyre to push his case harder against me, instead we find him battling Azrael the entire time without any additional pressure being added to him.
So what causes a player to drop the case on the player they currently find most suspicious? It can only mean that they don't especially care who is lynched. Who doesn't especially care who is lynched? Why, that would be scum.
What causes a player to argue to no end to clear their name without receiving additional pressure? I believe this to be even more telling than my first point. Such high concern with clearing one's name is textbook scum.
Now, I'm already voting Xyre, so there is no need for bolded text here, but I feel very confident in this vote after the past several pages.
In case you didn't notice, you're at the bottom of my shortlist, aka "lower priority suspect". That, combined with Azrael chasing me all over, is the reason why I haven't posted more on you.
And the red part is a common misconception in mafia, one I've already addressed this game. In sum: there is no correlation between aggressive self-defense and scumminess. Rather, the scumminess is found in analyzing how one defends himself, e.g. tone, technique, etc.
In case you didn't notice, you're at the bottom of my shortlist, aka "lower priority suspect". That, combined with Azrael chasing me all over, is the reason why I haven't posted more on you.
Do you PBPA all your low priorities?
And the red part is a common misconception in mafia, one I've already addressed this game. In sum: there is no correlation between aggressive self-defense and scumminess. Rather, the scumminess is found in analyzing how one defends himself, e.g. tone, technique, etc.
I don't leave it to scum to tell me how to find scum.
Mm hmm. That's my point. I've filed my complaint. Where's your answer?
Yes, the courts require "a short, plain statement of the facts". Which I've provided. *taps foot*
For the last time:
YOUR POST ON MY WOD CASE HAD NO FACTS. ONLY OPINIONS AND STATEMENTS. NO PROOF, NO EVIDENCE, NO NOTHING.
And you have a strange legal definition of short. Most filings I've seen range into the scores or even hundreds of pages. Matters of scale notwithstanding, they certainly have nothing in common with your one-liner. I'm asking you for a simple analysis of my WoD case; you gave me a quickly discarded line. I can't even count how many times you have not answered this point, instead pushing this same tired request. And I have told you that many times: give me something to work with, and you will get your results.
I've identified possible problem areas in your posting. I cannot "prove" that you're guilty until you come out with a defense. This is a battle over mens rea, your mental state. I can't prove that you're lying about your mental state (insomuch as the word proof is applicable to mens rea) until you say what your mental state was!!!
********. Your opinion has already been established: I'm unreliable. So you asking me to tell you "my mental state" is a false request through and through. Furthermore, this isn't a debate about mens rea whatsoever. Mens rea matters only inasmuch we're trying to discern either a) scale of punishment or b) competency - it has nothing whatsoever to do with proving basic guilt or innocence. So you asking me for mens rea is a pure and simple diversion to avoid giving me what I want - a simple case.
Or, better, discern my mental state from my case and then discern whether I'm lying about what I've stated my intent in that case and its subsequent withdrawal was. See, that's not so hard, is it? Indeed, that's Mafia 101. The fact that you're jumping through hoops to avoid giving me a simple case boggles me.
Let's scrap the legalese, which I brought up initially for a simple metaphor and has been twisted beyond its original meaning. I have a simple question instead: Why are you not just giving me a simple dissection of the WoD-case? That is your responsibility, and until you give me that, I have nothing to give you.
Yes, when what is being assessed is credibility, not logic, it may be appropriate to reach conclusions prior to the conclusion of the argument. If it only takes you ten minutes to figure out that one of the parties is blatantly lying, you're not required to suspend disbelief for the remaining three to four hours of argument.
Several interesting notes in the above:
1) "May". Clearly there are cases that are "open and shut" (he had the gun in his hand standing over the body filled with bullets from the same gun, the gun had its prints on it, his prints on the bullets, and he cut himself on the slide, etc.), but you have not prove that this case is anything like that kind, or that it deserves similar treatment. The above point suggests to me more that you want to avoid arguing it further with me, which runs contrary to your request for more information.
2) "Blatantly", for similar.
3) "Three to four hours of argument": versus how long it would take to just give me what I'm asking for?
Y'know, I hate drawing OMGUS fire, but this train has really frustrated me. I know you're a better analyst than to be making trite points and avoiding repeated requests for a simple case (which could probably be cranked out in 5-10 minutes, or the time required for maybe two of these endless legalese-drenched posts). Which makes me wonder why you want this lynch to go down so badly (as inferred from the above chat about "conclusions before conclusion") as to kick logic and concentrate on credibility. You're in the driver seat, and you know it - this is your interrogation, and the other players are following your tune - even going so far as to make votes like Skander's above (which, while not detracting from my town tell of him, smells strongly of a townie following the suspected path of progress). There isn't much analysis anymore, or at least, not as much coming from the town. And that's not what I'm used to seeing from you at all. I know you're a strong analyst, so why are you suddenly eschewing it for your one-liners? I've seen you make very strong PBPAs before, so why are you kicking the PBPA?
I can't shake that nagging voice in the back of my head that says "Az is playing the townies like a fiddle". It's not completely incredible - this is a style Cyan is quite good at. He has a reputation for posting a great deal and churning out large amounts of content both as town and scum (see the original Star Trek Mafia for a good example of the latter, where he used a weak investigation role and heavy posting to make it to the end as scum and wamboozle the town, myself included). I haven't seen Az use this before, though - he always seems more quiet and thoughtful as scum, and I've seen him use this style before as town - but it isn't completely impossible. And I've been considering my top three scum - Toast, Net, and PS - and they seem like a rather motley bunch. Most of the tells on them, while not unreasonable (especially on the first two) don't seem the kind of open-and-shut case I like from scum analysis. And my number 4, AH, doesn't really fit the part, either. Which gets me wondering whether Az is scum.
I look at it this way: CM/andelijah, kpaca*, Kraj, WoD, Chris/DYH, and Skander are town/leaning town. AH is the wild card, but I have nothing strong either way and he's a traditional lurker. PhantomS is weakly scum, and I think Toast and Net are pretty strong in that category. Which leaves, what? Az, AH, or PS? I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised. The Az case on Toastboy early on is something I'm hung up on, though (a perfect example of what I'm asking from him). He was the first person to call anything on Toastboy, and with gusto, no less. I don't see Az as the kind to pull quite a gambit like that, though I can see how he might temper it just enough to push it.
But then I start falling into the same holes I argued WoD had fallen into - paranoia, brief argumentation, and so forth. It's the same manic style I've criticized Az for having. I don't feel like I have a strong grip on this game at all. But I can't shake the sensation.
Anyway, I'm rambling, and this probably isn't doing anything to convince you all that I'm town. So I will go work on Toastboy's requested PBPA analysis and wait for Azrael to get off his ass and do his job.
* I don't know if he's positively town, but nothing he's posted has made me look up and say "huh?" He's my mason partner, in case that wasn't too obvious to anyone from his original vote and its "I've been considering this" comment immediately following Az's discussion about the possibility of scum masons.
Xyre #177 - quite confusing in its analysis, on purpose? However, fair points about contradiction of intention. Obviously doesn't recognise what Kraj says is a reactions vote.
We've been over this. I have admitted I missed his intent there, and overthought things.
Xyre #179 - Obviously finds quite a lot about Kraj's play scummy. Before criticising those who backed off him quickly? How bizarre. Seems like he wants to throw out as much suspicion as possible. Weird how he passes it off at the end sort of off-hand, does seem a little forced.
It's not criticism, per se, more an acknowledgment that that wagon was rather ad-hoc and collapsed too quickly for my liking. Obviously, not all of them could be scum, but scum are more likely than townies in general to move away from a wagon at the first sign of trouble lest they get caught up in any ensuing backlash or draw too much attention (this is effectively the inverse of the principle that scum enjoy wagoning without contributing much information).
Xyre #187 - confusion over why Kraj voted. Realise Kraj went on at the 'speedlynch' thing quite a lot fairly unnecessarily. But why is appealing to rationality scummy? Generalisation about 'scummy thing = justified' is twisting Kraj's words. Don't like that at all. The blue line he highlights is a perfectly fair generalistaion about Xyre's play, and yet he makes a big thing about 'derailing credibility'. Highlights difference to HP mafia.
Appeal to reason is a typo - appeal to emotion is closer.
I still disagree about the blue line.
While the references to HP mafia as a way to get out of the argument used on both sides gave the possibility that both were buddies separating each other, it really seems to me as if this argument was genuine. It is highly possible both are townies, but Xyre's description of why he backed off to me just gets me:
Quite clearly Xyre found Kraj scummy for more than just that one reason, he just got too caught up in that particular one. I stand by my original point that Xyre backed out far too easily. Furthermore the reason he gave in #191 wasn't that he thought Kraj defended himself well enough, but that he rethought his points and they didn't make sense. Particularly as this was just after Azrael had voted Xyre, I can't help but feel Xyre needed to back out of the spotlight. This, plus some really weak attacks on Kraj (who I consider now townie), so I'll leave my vote where it is.
Needed, no. But the Harry Potter references made me rethink the train. At the time he first mentioned it, I dismissed it because I was confident that this case was different, but in both cases, I focused on one point and let that lead me to all the other points. In effect, I built myself an upside-down pyramid - large and imposing, but quite susceptible to collapse. I backed off because I recognized the keystone of the entire argument, namely the original point on the vote, was faulty, and that I wanted to find more to attack him for in the belief that he was scum. Same happened in Harry Potter, though that argument was less me being an idiot and me twisting enough words to construct the argument I wanted.
I guess one could argue I wanted to "back out of the spotlight", though I would assert my intentions in doing so were pure: less out of an interest in self-preservation and more to dismantle a wagon I recognized to be defective. Same goes for the case with WoD. In both examples, I dove into a vote without considering the underlying assumptions (Kraj was voting honestly, WoD was acting against nature) that ultimately proved to be faulty. And I'm not stupid enough to pull the same gag twice and expect a different result.
Have you ever made a post that large as scum before?
Probably - I can't remember for sure. I make long posts. This is force of habit, I'm afraid. I'm a longwinded guy by nature and training. I would like to think, though, that the content of those long posts is genuine.
Tomorrow you'll likely get your wish. While I'm 'hard at work' at my internship.
(Where opposing counsel's entire complaint was 2 pages and their short plain statement was all of 5 paragraphs. )
Even to that scale, I expect better from you. And really, why all this "original complaint" matter in the first place?
Tangent: I recognize the disconnect between logical proof and credibility, but I like to think that this isn't a matter of a guessing game. Granted, it's entirely a guessing game inasmuch as scum tells are never solid and frequently scum subvert them in WIFOM, but like poker, those structures give way to solid theory, the basis of a logical debate.
I can understand why you emphasize a proof of credibility in this game, but my point is that you haven't given me anything - towards a proof of credibility or a proof of logic - and I can't discern why you still haven't done so. And that leaves me to wondering why.
I also appear to be the second name on your list that may or may not have a rhyme or reason to the order.
AH is in there inasmuch as he is constantly unknown, but his technique - lurking - is scummy in a vacuum. It's just the fact that it's AH that makes me reconsider, for the same reasons that made me think WoD's scummy behavior was genuinely scummy rather than WoD-scummy.
Do you PBPA all your low priorities?
If you'll remember, at the time you were on my neutral list. I did the PBPA on you (and Charm) to get a better grip on you two. It was that PBPA that put you in the leaning-scum column, though as a lower priority than Net and Toast. Make sense?
I don't leave it to scum to tell me how to find scum.
Quote from Kpaca »
I would argue that over-trying to clear your name is scummy though. Scum tend to be much more worried about getting lynched than townies.
and I can't discern why you still haven't done so. And that leaves me to wondering why.
We engaged in a staring contest, and I just blinked first. It's now easier to do an unnecessary PBPA than it is to wait for the answer you should have been able to provide 80 yrs. ago.
If you'll remember, at the time you were on my neutral list. I did the PBPA on you (and Charm) to get a better grip on you two. It was that PBPA that put you in the leaning-scum column, though as a lower priority than Net and Toast. Make sense?
How do you go from "don't see xyre as scum" to Vote Xyre in 6 posts?
That does not look good to me.
FOS Skander.
Because of what Az and kpaca said about the whole huge argument thing intended to be a distraction as well as what PhantomS pointed out. Am I confident that Xyre is scum? Not really but I'm sick of where we're at and I don't have anything else to go on so... yeah.
* Kpaca tops the townie list for his forthcomingness about being a mason, and playing his general style.
* WoD's "I'm counter-claiming you, scum!" retort places him high atop the list, too.
* Skander is literally oozing townie vibes from each of his posts and would be atop the list if not for the mason-claim interactions of Kpaca and WoD.
Those three round out the top tier.
Next up:
* PhantomS' contributions have been solid, this is more of a gut concern over the theme of the game and the timing of his mason claim that he is in the neutral pile rather than the townie one.
* Kraj's play regarding the Toastboy wagon is not something I would expect him to do as scum. On the flip-side, however, Toastboy is my largest suspect, and the net result was that he ended up off the hook.
* Azrael. Is Azrael. I do not believe I have ever correctly identified his alignment in a game, except perhaps God Mafia where he was the Cult Leader, and even then I let it go. Withholding judgment just yet.
* Netfinity seems to be sucking up to Azrael a lot, something that concerns me greatly coming from a player I'm not familiar with.
* Andelijah is here by no doing of his own; Charm Master was simply terrible.
Now for the bottom three:
* Abandon Hope is here primarily for his behavior as it pertains to WoD and his general lack of input.
* Xyre gives me the impression he is trying to bury the case against him in a pile of posts, excess verbiage, and mafia theory. The back-and-forth with Kraj was more of a flip-and-flop.
* Toastboy has yet to make a redeemable post. Several "more content later" posts, non-committal - seems to ask others for content without giving his own, huge tone shift when he was no longer the focus of attention.
Wasn't expecting to get into another game, but I figured why not, considering play's slower here than on GG and I have nothing better to do until my next game lists.
I think Az is onto something. Vote Jerubbaal
Here and elsewhere, Xyre has this strange, tentative mentality coming through his posts. He uses awkward, processed-sounding wording (whole post), and humorlessly piggybacks on a random vote.
His next five posts are one-liners and one out-of-game comment on when we last played together. They consist of sardonic, outside observer commentary. It's like he sees himself as an outsider, trying to ease himself into the game, worried that he won't be able to imitate town-like content and banter if he posts more than scattered thrusts.
His next two posts continue the easing in process. He makes a couple brief comments on seeing WoD as town, due to a meta read. Then...
Quote from Xyre »
*snip*
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.
The first half of this post he takes me up on the "read ChrisXIV" challenge...and offers some really off-the-wall comparison to a redundant wording tell in Redux that I scarcely even remember. Awkward and strange.
His provisional scum list is of interest too. All three of these players are lesser-known, low HP players; it takes less damage to put them on the lynching block, and I think Skander was a poor target. May have been opportunistic.
Quote from Xyre, on Skander »
I don't think you're necessarily guaranteed scum, but you're one of my top three suspects at the moment.
This comes at the tail end of his analysis post against Skander, where he attacks him for wording like "can't get scum for it". Completely counter-intuitive use of wording analysis there.
Then comes this qualifying statement at the end. Umm....duh? Who's a guaranteed scum this early on day one? Why even say that, except to keep things from boiling over into a confrontation and making a lasting enemy? This looks like you're playing at politics, not mafia.
Quote from Xyre »
The Kraj wagon has grown really fast. I need more time to look over Kraj's and the subsequent posts.
No immediate impressions about the Kraj wagon except for its speed? And a request for more time to look things over. Possibly because it's going to take him some time to fabricate a credible-sounding position.
Quote from xyre »
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.
Here Xyre assumes that I'm trying to trip people up, avoids the gambit, and tries to let me know he's one of the players on the inside of the joke.
Quote from Xyre »
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.
Self-conscious apology tell. And a good specimen of it. Note the "Sorry." The choppy wording, the "at the latest". And he still hasn't become comfortable wading in on the Kraj wagon, after five days. Coincidentally, the wind isn't yet blowing strongly one way or another...
Quote from Xyre »
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.
My gut says scummy
he may very well have
voting for Toast in that situation is probably either scum or dumb
and I believe Kraj isn't dense enough to think Az wasn't joking
*snip*
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.
The first post of this analysis post is filled with hedging qualifiers and weasel words. He's not committing to any of this. I don't see any genuine reads here.
After the snip, we get a repeat on the apologetic tell. He's very concerned about his image in others' eyes. He hopes there's "enough there to get the ball rolling". There's a strong case here that his big analysis posts are motivated by fear of reprisal, not by curiosity.
Quote from Xyre »
tl;dr: Respond to my actual, rather than perceived points; your posting style is very suspect. Confirm Vote
As for Harry Potter, I got wrapped up in the emotional response and let that cloud my judgment. Here, I think I have a much more straightforward view. Even without my arguments, you've provided a whole trove of behavior tells that suggest you overplayed your hand and are now overreacting.
After voting kraj and making a strong attack, he continues to express strong suspicions on Kraj in a second major analysis post.
Quote from Xyre »
Most of your arguments aren't leading anywhere, but there was one in there I did get stuck on, one you should have made earlier: what did Scum Kraj have to gain from just putting a vote on? And I couldn't think of a good answer for that. Bad sign.
*snip*
I have another question, probably, but I can't remember it. For now, the above will essentially resolve this matter for now. I may go look over your scum-games, but right now, Unvote.
And just like that, with no one else coming on board to the Kraj wagon, Xyre is 'convinced' by one of Kraj's arguments, poses some additional questions, and promptly turns tail.
Toastboy nailed him on this point too, but eventually dropped it as Xyre made the argument that Kraj's initial argument was confusing to him, but became more clear over time.
Initial PBPAs of Charm and Phantom- Not much of value here.
Quote from Xyre »
FOS PhantomS - I don't know if you're scum, but this really rubs me the wrong way.
Playing politics and really poor wording here again. Of course you don't know that he's scum. We know that. You know that. The only reason to write that is to dissuade Phantom from thinking that you're out to get him.
Then there's the basic disjunct between the two clauses. You don't know if he's scum, but it really rubs you the wrong way. Then maybe it's a sign that he could be scum???
Quote from Xyre »
This is an interesting point. Azrael's manic approach to this game is rather disconcerting; every post of solid analysis is met with five vote-shifts or pseudo-DATBFs, something I'm not used to seeing from Az, who's usually a very strong town player.
Borrows a point of analysis from Kraj to lay some seeds of doubt; along with some pretty rank and unjustified hyperbole about my noise-to-content ratio this game.
Quote from Xyre »
Took me a few looks, but yeah, I see it. Time to reassess Skander, I guess.
"Oops. I surrender!"
Quote from Xyre »
Project Unnecessary Smarm
Another off-beat, overstated scum theory, attempting to implicate Phantom for buddying up to me.
I'm beginning to suspect that he feels the buddying up point is such a reliable tell because it's what he does as scum. And he's been doing it most of the game.
The self-conscious PBPAs. Backing off of Skander and Kraj. Agreeing that Abandon Hope is worth a look. Over and over again, there's this concern about his image bubbling up.
Quote from Xyre, re Azrael »
I'm still fairly confident he's town, or incredibly gutsy.
Hedging, again, and not telling us anything we didn't already know about me.
Another note at this point. As far as I'm aware, Xyre has yet to make any argument this game that another player hadn't already come up with and supported first. He does these massive PBPAs, but doesn't use them to say anything that no one else hasn't already said. There's no originality, and no genuine thought process behind any of these posts.
The PBPAs are there to make him look good, but they're all empty facades, with no substance. Not a single one provides any evidence that he's doing any of his own thinking about the issues.
He's just sticking his thumb in the air to gauge the wind.
Quote from Xyre »
the vote on me and others at least suggests the WoD I'm used to, namely the bandwagoneer. I guess I'm going back to my gut reaction. Damn, wrong again.
Unvote
Once again he runs into stiff resistance on a PBPA, and once again he wilts after a little back and forth. I've already covered the evil stench creeping from the "Damn, wrong again" wording.
Quote from Xyre »
Okay, Az, this is pissing me off. MY CASE is my proof that it's not bad. You're saying it's bad, but I don't know WHAT is bad. What, am I supposed to go back through EVERY SINGLE POINT and explain it again? Your "concise case", as I noted, is a single line. What the hell am I supposed to do with that?
Wuh oh, guys. Now he's under attack. He can dish it out to half the thread, but apparently he can't take it, when it doesn't come wrapped up in a neat package with ribbons in PBPA format.
Quote from Xyre »
*moan, complain* burden of proof, blah blah blah
So, when Xyre is PBPAing all the other people in the thread so far this game, he's been asking them lots of inquisitive questions. And everyone else has answered them, without a problem.
What happens when I do the same?
He doesn't answer them. He detours into a side argument about the burden of proof and insufficient evidence, instead of responding to my concerns and meeting the argument head-on.
Summary
I think Xyre has been self-conscious about his posting style the entire game. He's posted noise, but not thoughts. He's extremely sensitive to other's opinions and more concerned with mollifying the players he's interrogating than in uncovering the truth. His wording tells are in the twilight zone. And when he comes under pressure, he feels that's he's failed in his scrupulous efforts to avoid detection because some lazy dork posted a pseudo-case, and his anger over that failure bubbles over. Then he tries to bury his case in a gigantic detour argument, and a demands a PBPA.
* Xyre gives me the impression he is trying to bury the case against him in a pile of posts, excess verbiage, and mafia theory. The back-and-forth with Kraj was more of a flip-and-flop.
* Toastboy has yet to make a redeemable post. Several "more content later" posts, non-committal - seems to ask others for content without giving his own, huge tone shift when he was no longer the focus of attention.
Vote: Toastboy
The way you're describing these wagons, the Xyre case sounds much more substantive and threatening. Toastboy's case is basically a plain-sight lurking theory. Why does a toastboy lurk-wagon outweigh Xyre-scum if you think he's trying to bury the case against him?
The tone shift in Toastboy's posts is dramatic; there's an overwhelming sense of "Thank goodness I'm not the target anymore!" that I get from reading them. Compare that to his bemoaning his upcoming absence while the wagon was at full force and meekly asking not to be lynched before he returns.
Xyre's position in the list is based primarily on not being able to make sense of the nonsense he's spewing; Toastboy's position is based on a solid read. I like my read, here.
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.
You just seemed to jump to the conclusion I was attacking you about your WoD case, despite the fact I haven't really mentioned it before, which implies some sort of guilty conscience.
What guilty conscience? I've already admitted it was a bad case.
Here and elsewhere, Xyre has this strange, tentative mentality coming through his posts. He uses awkward, processed-sounding wording (whole post), and humorlessly piggybacks on a random vote.
That's how I talk. Check my other recent games. Same for the other strange-wording points elsewhere.
His next five posts are one-liners and one out-of-game comment on when we last played together. They consist of sardonic, outside observer commentary. It's like he sees himself as an outsider, trying to ease himself into the game, worried that he won't be able to imitate town-like content and banter if he posts more than scattered thrusts.
Stop treating me like a newb. I was DATBF.
His next two posts continue the easing in process. He makes a couple brief comments on seeing WoD as town, due to a meta read. Then...
The first half of this post he takes me up on the "read ChrisXIV" challenge...and offers some really off-the-wall comparison to a redundant wording tell in Redux that I scarcely even remember. Awkward and strange.
How so? Clearly that game made more of an impression on me than on you, but that doesn't make it "awkward and strange" - it's only awkward or strange if you aren't considering the perspective I might be coming from. And you might note that I'd mentioned Redux previously, in reference to your "haven't voted Xyre in three years" post. I felt it was a legitimate association at the time.
His provisional scum list is of interest too. All three of these players are lesser-known, low HP players; it takes less damage to put them on the lynching block, and I think Skander was a poor target. May have been opportunistic.
In case you didn't notice, I still have two of those players on my list right now. If my intent was merely to pick low-hanging fruit, would I be standing by that first judgment? Do you think I just lucked into those players not acquitting themselves, or could it be that I genuinely thought and think they are/were scum?
This comes at the tail end of his analysis post against Skander, where he attacks him for wording like "can't get scum for it". Completely counter-intuitive use of wording analysis there.
Then comes this qualifying statement at the end. Umm....duh? Who's a guaranteed scum this early on day one? Why even say that, except to keep things from boiling over into a confrontation and making a lasting enemy? This looks like you're playing at politics, not mafia.
I don't understand this. "Guaranteed scum" was a bit colloquial, to be sure, but the important part of that sentence was the subsequent part. The top 3 scum list was provisional by nature; his position on there was indicative of my doubts, not my certainty. "Not guaranteed" was intended to reflect that uncertainty, but I can understand how the strong term of a guarantee might unbalance that.
No immediate impressions about the Kraj wagon except for its speed? And a request for more time to look things over. Possibly because it's going to take him some time to fabricate a credible-sounding position.
Okay, stop treating me like just any other player. (Tangent) This is why your style is frustrating - you don't take into account who you're dealing with, just what is said - nothing is focused on why beyond your hunch there. (End Tanget) If you knew me, you'd recognize I frequently make continuation posts like the above.
And the latter sentence feels strongly like you want to see that possibility, rather than actually seeing it.
Here Xyre assumes that I'm trying to trip people up, avoids the gambit, and tries to let me know he's one of the players on the inside of the joke.
You're right, but you're talking about the posts mentioned in the quoted post, not the quoted post itself - I assumed, not assumes.
Self-conscious apology tell. And a good specimen of it. Note the "Sorry." The choppy wording, the "at the latest". And he still hasn't become comfortable wading in on the Kraj wagon, after five days. Coincidentally, the wind isn't yet blowing strongly one way or another...
I don't see the choppy wording. The "at the latest" referred to the fact that I might not post due to my prior engagement. And it's worth noting here that I jumped in on the Kraj issue after the wagon had already collapsed under its own weight; therefore, I wasn't waiting for a bandwagon to follow.
The first post of this analysis post is filled with hedging qualifiers and weasel words. He's not committing to any of this. I don't see any genuine reads here.
After the snip, we get a repeat on the apologetic tell. He's very concerned about his image in others' eyes. He hopes there's "enough there to get the ball rolling". There's a strong case here that his big analysis posts are motivated by fear of reprisal, not by curiosity.
I don't understand the last sentence at all. The rest has already been established as my style.
After voting kraj and making a strong attack, he continues to express strong suspicions on Kraj in a second major analysis post.
The Kraj case has been thoroughly analyzed and explained.
And just like that, with no one else coming on board to the Kraj wagon, Xyre is 'convinced' by one of Kraj's arguments, poses some additional questions, and promptly turns tail.
Toastboy nailed him on this point too, but eventually dropped it as Xyre made the argument that Kraj's initial argument was confusing to him, but became more clear over time.
What's wrong with that argument?
Playing politics and really poor wording here again. Of course you don't know that he's scum. We know that. You know that. The only reason to write that is to dissuade Phantom from thinking that you're out to get him.
Then there's the basic disjunct between the two clauses. You don't know if he's scum, but it really rubs you the wrong way. Then maybe it's a sign that he could be scum???
See above on the "guaranteed" point.
Borrows a point of analysis from Kraj to lay some seeds of doubt; along with some pretty rank and unjustified hyperbole about my noise-to-content ratio this game.
How so?
Another off-beat, overstated scum theory, attempting to implicate Phantom for buddying up to me.
I'm beginning to suspect that he feels the buddying up point is such a reliable tell because it's what he does as scum. And he's been doing it most of the game.
The self-conscious PBPAs. Backing off of Skander and Kraj. Agreeing that Abandon Hope is worth a look. Over and over again, there's this concern about his image bubbling up.
Once again, this is something I do as town.
Another note at this point. As far as I'm aware, Xyre has yet to make any argument this game that another player hadn't already come up with and supported first. He does these massive PBPAs, but doesn't use them to say anything that no one else hasn't already said. There's no originality, and no genuine thought process behind any of these posts.
I completely disagree. I think the PBPAs have all been on original points or have developed pre-existing hypotheses in new ways. Skander, Kraj, Phantom, and WoD. The former two developed and expanded on criticisms of them, and the latter two I feel were new. You haven't supported this point.
The PBPAs are there to make him look good, but they're all empty facades, with no substance. Not a single one provides any evidence that he's doing any of his own thinking about the issues.
He's just sticking his thumb in the air to gauge the wind.
Addressed.
Wuh oh, guys. Now he's under attack. He can dish it out to half the thread, but apparently he can't take it, when it doesn't come wrapped up in a neat package with ribbons in PBPA format.
So, when Xyre is PBPAing all the other people in the thread so far this game, he's been asking them lots of inquisitive questions. And everyone else has answered them, without a problem.
What happens when I do the same?
He doesn't answer them. He detours into a side argument about the burden of proof and insufficient evidence, instead of responding to my concerns and meeting the argument head-on.
YOU DIDN'T ASK ME A QUESTION! Every question you have asked me has been answered promptly and completely. You're twisting my arguments to justify your lack-of-a-case. And many of those detours (e.g. the hijacking of my short legal system metaphor) were your doing, not mine.
Summary
I think Xyre has been self-conscious about his posting style the entire game. He's posted noise, but not thoughts. He's extremely sensitive to other's opinions and more concerned with mollifying the players he's interrogating than in uncovering the truth. His wording tells are in the twilight zone. And when he comes under pressure, he feels that's he's failed in his scrupulous efforts to avoid detection because some lazy dork posted a pseudo-case, and his anger over that failure bubbles over. Then he tries to bury his case in a gigantic detour argument, and a demands a PBPA.
A great deal of this case is based on rhetorical style that I've already established as mine normally. Much of the rest is based on the trajectory of the major cases I've pursued and then rejected, all of which I've explained either previously or above. Bottom line to me is that it seems Azrael wants me to be scum to back up some hypothesis - his original guess? just doesn't want to give up the ghost? I have no idea. I could see him hedging on this PBPA because he recognized there was nothing new to produce.
As for Az's "argument", I have thoroughly pointed out how it is a statement that had no possible response. Now that he's provided this case, I think it's clear there's very little here but suspicion unsupported in my gameplay history. And you have created a great deal of these "detours".
In summary: red = hyperbole, blue = standard behavior. Anything up there still in black?
Yep, I missed that. Of course, it was buried in the middle of a post as an aside comment with an asterisk.
You'll have to pardon me for skim-reading your posts in an effort to get caught up. You two were arguing things that didn't even seem relevant to the matter at hand.
I'm curious to see Azrael's response to this because there's one point in particular I'm hoping he covers; it makes or breaks the case, as far as I'm concerned.
I agree with Xyre, here, Az. Your style does not seem to take player individuality into account as much as it should.
"Understood" was a prelude to my reading Basic #1, Gambino Crime Family, Xyre's most recent townie game.
I defy any player to read his analysis in that game and compare it to what's here, and tell me that he reads the same.
In Gambino, he's confident, poised, and hungry. You read through his posts, and you see a sharp intellect, tracking down information and welding it into cohesive pictures of events. He's alive, and bold,in a way that's complete contradictory to the sycophantic, hedging, nervous, and emotional specimen that's been backed into a corner here.
The meta defense is not a carte blanche for everything we've seen here.
Vote: Xyre.
DYH, let me know what your specific concern was, and if I haven't addressed it already, I will.
Ah, but you said yourself that you ask questions to find scum - but you didn't ask questions to me, and yet I was "very scummy". You've essentially said that you had nothing to ask me to prove in your mind that I was scum, which goes against your previously stated principle of asking questions to find scum. This means that one of two things is true:
1) You're a hypocrite and a liar, or
2) Whether you have opinions is pointless, because you're scum, and thus were interested in seeing if your one-liner could get someone to say "oh, yeah, Xyre's scummy here", thus creating and jumping on a bandwagon in a single go. Hence, you're scum.
Wonderful example of pro-town A --> B --> C --> = scum deductive reasoning here.
Compare to his Janus posts, where he simply lists information, dithers on it, and fails to draw any persuasive conclusions.
Quote from Xyre »
I'd like proof of that, please.
Anyway, not a single thing I requested (comparable example of pressure, how his idea of his behavior is more likely town than scum, an explanation of my "bastardization", and that's just my last post). Instead, he's sticking to a party line: "he's misrepresenting me". This feels like a classic ad hominem, intended to subvert my argument and avoid him defending his scummy behavior.
Unvote SSB, Vote goatrevolt
Which isn't to say I'm done with SSB, but it sounds like he's busy.
No qualifiers here. Good, confident use of absolute statements and descriptions. He's confident in his reads and ideas, his language reflects that, and you can tell he's going to fight hard for that read, despite the mounting pressure and criticism against him amongst the town.
Quote from Xyre »
Before the catcalls start, yes, I know this list is incomplete, but it's based on impressions and five minutes of simplistic research. I'll look over the thread and give a more complete analysis in the next few days.
Here's one of his apology posts for incomplete research, but note the complete 180 difference on the tone between his "Sorry." post here in Janus, and the post from Gambino. 'Before the catcalls start': that's straight from the heart. And he promises to come back and post without fear or qualifiers.
I've been sarnathed. Reading Az's post now, but here was my initial impression:
Initially, the tone is noticably different - he seems more playful, but the net result ends up being the same.
Quote from Goatrevolt »
I actually don't think you're scum anymore. You're way too emotional about this and got way too excited when you "caught" me. If this is you engineering a mislynch, you are pretty sleek. Also, you are reacting really strongly to me calling you scum. I doubt you would have raised this fuss if I had said "after reading the thread, Loran strikes me as the most scummy." I'm reading it as more town-frustration at being labeled scum than scum trying to throw me off your back.
Also, I want to say that I am extremely pissed off right now too. I have no idea why you are pissed off, but I'm sick and tired of answering the same question over and over again and then having you say I didn't answer the question.
Xyre and GR end up in a posting war once GR labels him as "scummy" without proof, and the above quote is what brings about its conclusion where Xyre decides not to pursue GR anymore. It's eeriely similar to what happened here with Kraj.
I get a different vibe from Xyre in his arguments with you, and I think that's because the situation is reversed; it's you driving the attack on him, not vice versa. He turns into GR in this situation, and you're him. He's no longer playful, hungry, alive, etc. likely because he's annoyed beyond belief at what he thinks is a bogus attack.
In addition, he does several PBPAs in that game, similar to what he's done here.
It's playing out like a mock version of Basic 1, only with the tables turned. In light of that, I'm not convinced. I still think Toastboy is a much better lead.
I would like to see your town-scum list.
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
No, I'm not. I unvoted because I realized I was mistaken about WoD.
What, you mean that list of comments on my argument with Kraj? If so, I'll look over it; if not, what are you talking about?
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
Good point. I'll take a look.
Spam warning for quintuple 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
To seize back the legal metaphor, when a plaintiff files a complaint, they lay out their initial case in only the most basic terms. Then the defendant writes an answer, which responds in kind. From there, the two parties delve into greater detail.
You now know what my beefs are in basic terms. I don't know what your defense or affirmative defenses might be. But knowing whether or not you can effectively state an explanation may be sufficient evidence to satisfy me.
Our job here is to assess credibility, not necessarily to win dueling logical propositions. That fundamentally alters the burden of proof. A jury need not always hear all that the lawyers have to say before they can reach an appropriate verdict.
Problems with the above:
1) I'm not the proponent; I'm the defendant. "Innocent until proven guilty" means the burden of proof is on he who accuses of guilt - in this case, you - and my burden is merely to refute that accusation.
2) Re: "complaints", it depends on what frame you're arguing in - criminal or civil. But both require minimum burdens of proof at the introductory level, whether in the original indictment in the former or the complaint filing in the latter. A mere "J'accuse!" is insufficient outside 19th century French politics.
2.2) Notably, I've asked you for a greater analysis of your original statement to no avail. Why is that, and why is this argument much more productive than that one?
3) The sentence in red is silly on several levels. Even outside the judicial realm, are you suggesting it's justified to not hear the full case before making decisions? If so, why are you even asking me for these answers, if you're merely trying to prove my guilt? If I wasn't confident about your alignment, my eyebrows would be having a tea party with my hair right now.
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
Mm hmm. That's my point. I've filed my complaint. Where's your answer?
Yes, the courts require "a short, plain statement of the facts". Which I've provided. *taps foot*
But apparently the threshold burden of proof for the honorable court of Xyre-mafia is more demanding than the U.S. legal system...
I've identified possible problem areas in your posting. I cannot "prove" that you're guilty until you come out with a defense. This is a battle over mens rea, your mental state. I can't prove that you're lying about your mental state (insomuch as the word proof is applicable to mens rea) until you say what your mental state was!!!
Yes, when what is being assessed is credibility, not logic, it may be appropriate to reach conclusions prior to the conclusion of the argument. If it only takes you ten minutes to figure out that one of the parties is blatantly lying, you're not required to suspend disbelief for the remaining three to four hours of argument.
And Xyre comes around the left corner making silly distracting arguments about actual legal terms!!!! How will Az and the lynchwagon recover from this shocking turn of events!!!!! Hurry up and get your bets in!
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.
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
Sorry. After HP I had an absurdly long string of scum games: Final Fantasy, Smalltown, Fairy Tale, Dictionary, Persona. In newbie 20 I was a survivor. That brings us to current games in progress. Feel free to take a look at Inheritance, though that game is so nuts I'd be surprised if you got a useful read. (I'm Ash and joined the game night 1. Ignore day 1, for the sake of your sanity.)
Could you please clarify this? I'm really confused by your wording.
I am also interested in Netfinity's reads.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
Xyre vs Az is making me zone out over here (the legalistic arguments are, shall we say... a tad boring). Either way I still don't see Xyre as scum.
I'm looking forward to the new perspective coming from DYH.
That's probably what he's going for.
Az points maybe?
So what causes a player to drop the case on the player they currently find most suspicious? It can only mean that they don't especially care who is lynched. Who doesn't especially care who is lynched? Why, that would be scum.
What causes a player to argue to no end to clear their name without receiving additional pressure? I believe this to be even more telling than my first point. Such high concern with clearing one's name is textbook scum.
Now, I'm already voting Xyre, so there is no need for bolded text here, but I feel very confident in this vote after the past several pages.
Vote Xyre.
In case you didn't notice, you're at the bottom of my shortlist, aka "lower priority suspect". That, combined with Azrael chasing me all over, is the reason why I haven't posted more on you.
And the red part is a common misconception in mafia, one I've already addressed this game. In sum: there is no correlation between aggressive self-defense and scumminess. Rather, the scumminess is found in analyzing how one defends himself, e.g. tone, technique, etc.
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
Do you PBPA all your low priorities?
I don't leave it to scum to tell me how to find scum.
I also appear to be the second name on your list that may or may not have a rhyme or reason to the order.
For the last time:
YOUR POST ON MY WOD CASE HAD NO FACTS. ONLY OPINIONS AND STATEMENTS. NO PROOF, NO EVIDENCE, NO NOTHING.
And you have a strange legal definition of short. Most filings I've seen range into the scores or even hundreds of pages. Matters of scale notwithstanding, they certainly have nothing in common with your one-liner. I'm asking you for a simple analysis of my WoD case; you gave me a quickly discarded line. I can't even count how many times you have not answered this point, instead pushing this same tired request. And I have told you that many times: give me something to work with, and you will get your results.
********. Your opinion has already been established: I'm unreliable. So you asking me to tell you "my mental state" is a false request through and through. Furthermore, this isn't a debate about mens rea whatsoever. Mens rea matters only inasmuch we're trying to discern either a) scale of punishment or b) competency - it has nothing whatsoever to do with proving basic guilt or innocence. So you asking me for mens rea is a pure and simple diversion to avoid giving me what I want - a simple case.
Or, better, discern my mental state from my case and then discern whether I'm lying about what I've stated my intent in that case and its subsequent withdrawal was. See, that's not so hard, is it? Indeed, that's Mafia 101. The fact that you're jumping through hoops to avoid giving me a simple case boggles me.
Let's scrap the legalese, which I brought up initially for a simple metaphor and has been twisted beyond its original meaning. I have a simple question instead: Why are you not just giving me a simple dissection of the WoD-case? That is your responsibility, and until you give me that, I have nothing to give you.
Several interesting notes in the above:
1) "May". Clearly there are cases that are "open and shut" (he had the gun in his hand standing over the body filled with bullets from the same gun, the gun had its prints on it, his prints on the bullets, and he cut himself on the slide, etc.), but you have not prove that this case is anything like that kind, or that it deserves similar treatment. The above point suggests to me more that you want to avoid arguing it further with me, which runs contrary to your request for more information.
2) "Blatantly", for similar.
3) "Three to four hours of argument": versus how long it would take to just give me what I'm asking for?
Y'know, I hate drawing OMGUS fire, but this train has really frustrated me. I know you're a better analyst than to be making trite points and avoiding repeated requests for a simple case (which could probably be cranked out in 5-10 minutes, or the time required for maybe two of these endless legalese-drenched posts). Which makes me wonder why you want this lynch to go down so badly (as inferred from the above chat about "conclusions before conclusion") as to kick logic and concentrate on credibility. You're in the driver seat, and you know it - this is your interrogation, and the other players are following your tune - even going so far as to make votes like Skander's above (which, while not detracting from my town tell of him, smells strongly of a townie following the suspected path of progress). There isn't much analysis anymore, or at least, not as much coming from the town. And that's not what I'm used to seeing from you at all. I know you're a strong analyst, so why are you suddenly eschewing it for your one-liners? I've seen you make very strong PBPAs before, so why are you kicking the PBPA?
I can't shake that nagging voice in the back of my head that says "Az is playing the townies like a fiddle". It's not completely incredible - this is a style Cyan is quite good at. He has a reputation for posting a great deal and churning out large amounts of content both as town and scum (see the original Star Trek Mafia for a good example of the latter, where he used a weak investigation role and heavy posting to make it to the end as scum and wamboozle the town, myself included). I haven't seen Az use this before, though - he always seems more quiet and thoughtful as scum, and I've seen him use this style before as town - but it isn't completely impossible. And I've been considering my top three scum - Toast, Net, and PS - and they seem like a rather motley bunch. Most of the tells on them, while not unreasonable (especially on the first two) don't seem the kind of open-and-shut case I like from scum analysis. And my number 4, AH, doesn't really fit the part, either. Which gets me wondering whether Az is scum.
I look at it this way: CM/andelijah, kpaca*, Kraj, WoD, Chris/DYH, and Skander are town/leaning town. AH is the wild card, but I have nothing strong either way and he's a traditional lurker. PhantomS is weakly scum, and I think Toast and Net are pretty strong in that category. Which leaves, what? Az, AH, or PS? I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised. The Az case on Toastboy early on is something I'm hung up on, though (a perfect example of what I'm asking from him). He was the first person to call anything on Toastboy, and with gusto, no less. I don't see Az as the kind to pull quite a gambit like that, though I can see how he might temper it just enough to push it.
But then I start falling into the same holes I argued WoD had fallen into - paranoia, brief argumentation, and so forth. It's the same manic style I've criticized Az for having. I don't feel like I have a strong grip on this game at all. But I can't shake the sensation.
Anyway, I'm rambling, and this probably isn't doing anything to convince you all that I'm town. So I will go work on Toastboy's requested PBPA analysis and wait for Azrael to get off his ass and do his job.
* I don't know if he's positively town, but nothing he's posted has made me look up and say "huh?" He's my mason partner, in case that wasn't too obvious to anyone from his original vote and its "I've been considering this" comment immediately following Az's discussion about the possibility of scum masons.
This is exactly what I'm talking about re: everyone following Azrael's song.
Huh?
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
lol
Tomorrow you'll likely get your wish. While I'm 'hard at work' at my internship.
(Where opposing counsel's entire complaint was 2 pages and their short plain statement was all of 5 paragraphs. )
*Awards +1 kpaca point for your sig*
We've been over this. I have admitted I missed his intent there, and overthought things.
It's not criticism, per se, more an acknowledgment that that wagon was rather ad-hoc and collapsed too quickly for my liking. Obviously, not all of them could be scum, but scum are more likely than townies in general to move away from a wagon at the first sign of trouble lest they get caught up in any ensuing backlash or draw too much attention (this is effectively the inverse of the principle that scum enjoy wagoning without contributing much information).
Appeal to reason is a typo - appeal to emotion is closer.
I still disagree about the blue line.
Needed, no. But the Harry Potter references made me rethink the train. At the time he first mentioned it, I dismissed it because I was confident that this case was different, but in both cases, I focused on one point and let that lead me to all the other points. In effect, I built myself an upside-down pyramid - large and imposing, but quite susceptible to collapse. I backed off because I recognized the keystone of the entire argument, namely the original point on the vote, was faulty, and that I wanted to find more to attack him for in the belief that he was scum. Same happened in Harry Potter, though that argument was less me being an idiot and me twisting enough words to construct the argument I wanted.
I guess one could argue I wanted to "back out of the spotlight", though I would assert my intentions in doing so were pure: less out of an interest in self-preservation and more to dismantle a wagon I recognized to be defective. Same goes for the case with WoD. In both examples, I dove into a vote without considering the underlying assumptions (Kraj was voting honestly, WoD was acting against nature) that ultimately proved to be faulty. And I'm not stupid enough to pull the same gag twice and expect a different result.
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
Probably - I can't remember for sure. I make long posts. This is force of habit, I'm afraid. I'm a longwinded guy by nature and training. I would like to think, though, that the content of those long posts is genuine.
Even to that scale, I expect better from you. And really, why all this "original complaint" matter in the first place?
Tangent: I recognize the disconnect between logical proof and credibility, but I like to think that this isn't a matter of a guessing game. Granted, it's entirely a guessing game inasmuch as scum tells are never solid and frequently scum subvert them in WIFOM, but like poker, those structures give way to solid theory, the basis of a logical debate.
I can understand why you emphasize a proof of credibility in this game, but my point is that you haven't given me anything - towards a proof of credibility or a proof of logic - and I can't discern why you still haven't done so. And that leaves me to wondering why.
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 is in there inasmuch as he is constantly unknown, but his technique - lurking - is scummy in a vacuum. It's just the fact that it's AH that makes me reconsider, for the same reasons that made me think WoD's scummy behavior was genuinely scummy rather than WoD-scummy.
If you'll remember, at the time you were on my neutral list. I did the PBPA on you (and Charm) to get a better grip on you two. It was that PBPA that put you in the leaning-scum column, though as a lower priority than Net and Toast. Make sense?
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
Heh. I know that sensation. I spent the better part of my summer surfing blogs when I should have been doing my work. Caught up on the Hills, though!
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 engaged in a staring contest, and I just blinked first. It's now easier to do an unnecessary PBPA than it is to wait for the answer you should have been able to provide 80 yrs. ago.
You're such a rebel, Xyre.
Don't let him post on multiples of 40, guys.
I will be away until Friday/Saturday visiting family. I'll have more to add when I get back.
Salvation Mafia Clan
Mafia Stats
last updated 03/23/11
So you backed off as soon as you found me scummy?
You fascinate me.
That does not look good to me.
FOS Skander.
Because of what Az and kpaca said about the whole huge argument thing intended to be a distraction as well as what PhantomS pointed out. Am I confident that Xyre is scum? Not really but I'm sick of where we're at and I don't have anything else to go on so... yeah.
Kpaca
WoD
Skander
PhantomS
Kraj
Azrael
Netfinity
Andelijah
Abandon Hope
Xyre
Toastboy
* * *
Notes:
* Kpaca tops the townie list for his forthcomingness about being a mason, and playing his general style.
* WoD's "I'm counter-claiming you, scum!" retort places him high atop the list, too.
* Skander is literally oozing townie vibes from each of his posts and would be atop the list if not for the mason-claim interactions of Kpaca and WoD.
Those three round out the top tier.
Next up:
* PhantomS' contributions have been solid, this is more of a gut concern over the theme of the game and the timing of his mason claim that he is in the neutral pile rather than the townie one.
* Kraj's play regarding the Toastboy wagon is not something I would expect him to do as scum. On the flip-side, however, Toastboy is my largest suspect, and the net result was that he ended up off the hook.
* Azrael. Is Azrael. I do not believe I have ever correctly identified his alignment in a game, except perhaps God Mafia where he was the Cult Leader, and even then I let it go. Withholding judgment just yet.
* Netfinity seems to be sucking up to Azrael a lot, something that concerns me greatly coming from a player I'm not familiar with.
* Andelijah is here by no doing of his own; Charm Master was simply terrible.
Now for the bottom three:
* Abandon Hope is here primarily for his behavior as it pertains to WoD and his general lack of input.
* Xyre gives me the impression he is trying to bury the case against him in a pile of posts, excess verbiage, and mafia theory. The back-and-forth with Kraj was more of a flip-and-flop.
* Toastboy has yet to make a redeemable post. Several "more content later" posts, non-committal - seems to ask others for content without giving his own, huge tone shift when he was no longer the focus of attention.
Vote: Toastboy
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
Here and elsewhere, Xyre has this strange, tentative mentality coming through his posts. He uses awkward, processed-sounding wording (whole post), and humorlessly piggybacks on a random vote.
His next five posts are one-liners and one out-of-game comment on when we last played together. They consist of sardonic, outside observer commentary. It's like he sees himself as an outsider, trying to ease himself into the game, worried that he won't be able to imitate town-like content and banter if he posts more than scattered thrusts.
His next two posts continue the easing in process. He makes a couple brief comments on seeing WoD as town, due to a meta read. Then...
The first half of this post he takes me up on the "read ChrisXIV" challenge...and offers some really off-the-wall comparison to a redundant wording tell in Redux that I scarcely even remember. Awkward and strange.
His provisional scum list is of interest too. All three of these players are lesser-known, low HP players; it takes less damage to put them on the lynching block, and I think Skander was a poor target. May have been opportunistic.
This comes at the tail end of his analysis post against Skander, where he attacks him for wording like "can't get scum for it". Completely counter-intuitive use of wording analysis there.
Then comes this qualifying statement at the end. Umm....duh? Who's a guaranteed scum this early on day one? Why even say that, except to keep things from boiling over into a confrontation and making a lasting enemy? This looks like you're playing at politics, not mafia.
No immediate impressions about the Kraj wagon except for its speed? And a request for more time to look things over. Possibly because it's going to take him some time to fabricate a credible-sounding position.
Here Xyre assumes that I'm trying to trip people up, avoids the gambit, and tries to let me know he's one of the players on the inside of the joke.
Self-conscious apology tell. And a good specimen of it. Note the "Sorry." The choppy wording, the "at the latest". And he still hasn't become comfortable wading in on the Kraj wagon, after five days. Coincidentally, the wind isn't yet blowing strongly one way or another...
The first post of this analysis post is filled with hedging qualifiers and weasel words. He's not committing to any of this. I don't see any genuine reads here.
After the snip, we get a repeat on the apologetic tell. He's very concerned about his image in others' eyes. He hopes there's "enough there to get the ball rolling". There's a strong case here that his big analysis posts are motivated by fear of reprisal, not by curiosity.
After voting kraj and making a strong attack, he continues to express strong suspicions on Kraj in a second major analysis post.
And just like that, with no one else coming on board to the Kraj wagon, Xyre is 'convinced' by one of Kraj's arguments, poses some additional questions, and promptly turns tail.
Toastboy nailed him on this point too, but eventually dropped it as Xyre made the argument that Kraj's initial argument was confusing to him, but became more clear over time.
Initial PBPAs of Charm and Phantom- Not much of value here.
Playing politics and really poor wording here again. Of course you don't know that he's scum. We know that. You know that. The only reason to write that is to dissuade Phantom from thinking that you're out to get him.
Then there's the basic disjunct between the two clauses. You don't know if he's scum, but it really rubs you the wrong way. Then maybe it's a sign that he could be scum???
Borrows a point of analysis from Kraj to lay some seeds of doubt; along with some pretty rank and unjustified hyperbole about my noise-to-content ratio this game.
"Oops. I surrender!"
Another off-beat, overstated scum theory, attempting to implicate Phantom for buddying up to me.
I'm beginning to suspect that he feels the buddying up point is such a reliable tell because it's what he does as scum. And he's been doing it most of the game.
The self-conscious PBPAs. Backing off of Skander and Kraj. Agreeing that Abandon Hope is worth a look. Over and over again, there's this concern about his image bubbling up.
Hedging, again, and not telling us anything we didn't already know about me.
Another note at this point. As far as I'm aware, Xyre has yet to make any argument this game that another player hadn't already come up with and supported first. He does these massive PBPAs, but doesn't use them to say anything that no one else hasn't already said. There's no originality, and no genuine thought process behind any of these posts.
The PBPAs are there to make him look good, but they're all empty facades, with no substance. Not a single one provides any evidence that he's doing any of his own thinking about the issues.
He's just sticking his thumb in the air to gauge the wind.
Once again he runs into stiff resistance on a PBPA, and once again he wilts after a little back and forth. I've already covered the evil stench creeping from the "Damn, wrong again" wording.
Wuh oh, guys. Now he's under attack. He can dish it out to half the thread, but apparently he can't take it, when it doesn't come wrapped up in a neat package with ribbons in PBPA format.
So, when Xyre is PBPAing all the other people in the thread so far this game, he's been asking them lots of inquisitive questions. And everyone else has answered them, without a problem.
What happens when I do the same?
He doesn't answer them. He detours into a side argument about the burden of proof and insufficient evidence, instead of responding to my concerns and meeting the argument head-on.
Summary
I think Xyre has been self-conscious about his posting style the entire game. He's posted noise, but not thoughts. He's extremely sensitive to other's opinions and more concerned with mollifying the players he's interrogating than in uncovering the truth. His wording tells are in the twilight zone. And when he comes under pressure, he feels that's he's failed in his scrupulous efforts to avoid detection because some lazy dork posted a pseudo-case, and his anger over that failure bubbles over. Then he tries to bury his case in a gigantic detour argument, and a demands a PBPA.
I'm pretty confident we've got our man. Confirm vote: Xyre.
There you are. Now die.
The way you're describing these wagons, the Xyre case sounds much more substantive and threatening. Toastboy's case is basically a plain-sight lurking theory. Why does a toastboy lurk-wagon outweigh Xyre-scum if you think he's trying to bury the case against him?
Xyre's position in the list is based primarily on not being able to make sense of the nonsense he's spewing; Toastboy's position is based on a solid read. I like my read, here.
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
Xyre - 6 (Az, PhantomS, Toastboy, kpaca, Skander, WoD)
WoD - 1 (AH)
kpaca - 1 (Kraj)
Azrael - 1 (Netfinity)
Kraj - 1 (Ande)
Toastboy - 1 (DYH)
7 to lynch
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.
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
No. I wasn't originally on you. As stated, I produced the PBPA to move you off the neutral list. And then other priorities took hold.
What guilty conscience? I've already admitted it was a bad case.
There, was that so hard?
That's how I talk. Check my other recent games. Same for the other strange-wording points elsewhere.
Stop treating me like a newb. I was DATBF.
How so? Clearly that game made more of an impression on me than on you, but that doesn't make it "awkward and strange" - it's only awkward or strange if you aren't considering the perspective I might be coming from. And you might note that I'd mentioned Redux previously, in reference to your "haven't voted Xyre in three years" post. I felt it was a legitimate association at the time.
In case you didn't notice, I still have two of those players on my list right now. If my intent was merely to pick low-hanging fruit, would I be standing by that first judgment? Do you think I just lucked into those players not acquitting themselves, or could it be that I genuinely thought and think they are/were scum?
I don't understand this. "Guaranteed scum" was a bit colloquial, to be sure, but the important part of that sentence was the subsequent part. The top 3 scum list was provisional by nature; his position on there was indicative of my doubts, not my certainty. "Not guaranteed" was intended to reflect that uncertainty, but I can understand how the strong term of a guarantee might unbalance that.
Okay, stop treating me like just any other player. (Tangent) This is why your style is frustrating - you don't take into account who you're dealing with, just what is said - nothing is focused on why beyond your hunch there. (End Tanget) If you knew me, you'd recognize I frequently make continuation posts like the above.
And the latter sentence feels strongly like you want to see that possibility, rather than actually seeing it.
You're right, but you're talking about the posts mentioned in the quoted post, not the quoted post itself - I assumed, not assumes.
I don't see the choppy wording. The "at the latest" referred to the fact that I might not post due to my prior engagement. And it's worth noting here that I jumped in on the Kraj issue after the wagon had already collapsed under its own weight; therefore, I wasn't waiting for a bandwagon to follow.
I don't understand the last sentence at all. The rest has already been established as my style.
The Kraj case has been thoroughly analyzed and explained.
What's wrong with that argument?
See above on the "guaranteed" point.
How so?
Once again, this is something I do as town.
I completely disagree. I think the PBPAs have all been on original points or have developed pre-existing hypotheses in new ways. Skander, Kraj, Phantom, and WoD. The former two developed and expanded on criticisms of them, and the latter two I feel were new. You haven't supported this point.
Addressed.
YOU DIDN'T ASK ME A QUESTION! Every question you have asked me has been answered promptly and completely. You're twisting my arguments to justify your lack-of-a-case. And many of those detours (e.g. the hijacking of my short legal system metaphor) were your doing, not mine.
A great deal of this case is based on rhetorical style that I've already established as mine normally. Much of the rest is based on the trajectory of the major cases I've pursued and then rejected, all of which I've explained either previously or above. Bottom line to me is that it seems Azrael wants me to be scum to back up some hypothesis - his original guess? just doesn't want to give up the ghost? I have no idea. I could see him hedging on this PBPA because he recognized there was nothing new to produce.
As for Az's "argument", I have thoroughly pointed out how it is a statement that had no possible response. Now that he's provided this case, I think it's clear there's very little here but suspicion unsupported in my gameplay history. And you have created a great deal of these "detours".
In summary: red = hyperbole, blue = standard behavior. Anything up there still in black?
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
Sigh. None of you are reading my posts? I hate this game.
I'm kpaca's mason buddy.
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'll have to pardon me for skim-reading your posts in an effort to get caught up. You two were arguing things that didn't even seem relevant to the matter at hand.
I'm curious to see Azrael's response to this because there's one point in particular I'm hoping he covers; it makes or breaks the case, as far as I'm concerned.
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
Understood.
That was not the answer I was looking for.
I agree with Xyre, here, Az. Your style does not seem to take player individuality into account as much as it should.
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
"Understood" was a prelude to my reading Basic #1, Gambino Crime Family, Xyre's most recent townie game.
I defy any player to read his analysis in that game and compare it to what's here, and tell me that he reads the same.
In Gambino, he's confident, poised, and hungry. You read through his posts, and you see a sharp intellect, tracking down information and welding it into cohesive pictures of events. He's alive, and bold,in a way that's complete contradictory to the sycophantic, hedging, nervous, and emotional specimen that's been backed into a corner here.
The meta defense is not a carte blanche for everything we've seen here.
Vote: Xyre.
DYH, let me know what your specific concern was, and if I haven't addressed it already, I will.
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
Wonderful example of pro-town A --> B --> C --> = scum deductive reasoning here.
Compare to his Janus posts, where he simply lists information, dithers on it, and fails to draw any persuasive conclusions.
No qualifiers here. Good, confident use of absolute statements and descriptions. He's confident in his reads and ideas, his language reflects that, and you can tell he's going to fight hard for that read, despite the mounting pressure and criticism against him amongst the town.
Here's one of his apology posts for incomplete research, but note the complete 180 difference on the tone between his "Sorry." post here in Janus, and the post from Gambino. 'Before the catcalls start': that's straight from the heart. And he promises to come back and post without fear or qualifiers.
This is not the same Xyre.
Initially, the tone is noticably different - he seems more playful, but the net result ends up being the same.
Xyre and GR end up in a posting war once GR labels him as "scummy" without proof, and the above quote is what brings about its conclusion where Xyre decides not to pursue GR anymore. It's eeriely similar to what happened here with Kraj.
I get a different vibe from Xyre in his arguments with you, and I think that's because the situation is reversed; it's you driving the attack on him, not vice versa. He turns into GR in this situation, and you're him. He's no longer playful, hungry, alive, etc. likely because he's annoyed beyond belief at what he thinks is a bogus attack.
In addition, he does several PBPAs in that game, similar to what he's done here.
It's playing out like a mock version of Basic 1, only with the tables turned. In light of that, I'm not convinced. I still think Toastboy is a much better lead.
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29