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 like ZasZ's post. I don't suppose we could lynch him before he posts again and further shakes my absolute certainty that he is scum by virtue of his predecessors' behavior?
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.
Also, DYH, what distinguishes Phantom's post from AH's 481? You mentioned earlier that Phantom had some other activity that disturbed you, but from the sound of it, non-contribution is your primary motivator, and AH has probably been more egregious on that score than anyone else this game.
Have you ever played a game with AH, Azrael? This is not abnormal behavior from him; in fact, it's par for the course. The problem is, it's par for the course regardless of alignment. Simply prodding there for more information.
As far as I can discern suspicions of me stem solely from inactivity. Not a whole lot I can do about previous inactivity, but I'll try to be more active in the future.
I think the case on Abandon Hope is rather weak. What I see from AH is a very apathetic player, which I actually advocate as a townie mindset- townie not pro-town mind you. While he's not helping the town it's pretty clear that he isn't looking to impress anybody.
Well isn't that just a convenient series of conclusions? Could it be because you've been mighty apathetic as well?
Quote from PhatomS »
I will now elaborate on my earlier comment about mason pairs. I was hoping that a dead set of masons would shed some light as to the alignment of my mason partner, but with xyre and kpaca both coming up town I don't feel any more confidant in WoD's alignment one way or the other. I very much doubt that all masons are town, but more thinking along this line is merely gaming the mod at this juncture. If xyre was scum and kpaca town then the idea that masons were 1:1 scum:town would be viable, if not yet worthy of pursuit. Considering the lack of any useful conclusion perhaps I shouldn't have said anything, but frankly I didn't have anything else to say. :shrugs:
I find it peculiar that DYH accused me of having "an aversion to posting an opinion". That's just misleading loaded language. On what basis can one say that I have such an aversion?
Based on the fact you had an aversion to posting, period, and then said nothing noteworthy with your first post today. I've already covered this.
If you're trying to make me feel bad for signing up for a game of which I had no idea of the background then you got it, dude.
I did not come in expecting anything, and I knew nothing of Janus. This isn't the first time I've signed up for a game in which I knew nothing of the flavor/background information either. There was this game on MTGDarkness called captain taylor mafia. I signed up thinking the mod had made up some neat little story. Apparently captain taylor is an anime.
Appeal to sympathy? That wasn't the objective, and I've already discussed that, too. The point was that your reaction was over-the-top.
Quote from PhantomS »
So, what's the issue here?
Are you reading my posts? The issue was that it didn't sync with your previous overreaction to the mason claims. If you thought everyone was a mason, why was it such a big deal that WoD said what he did? It also doesn't jive with the section above.
Quote from PhantomS »
My options were read the NK and post something or read the NK and not post anything. You could say I was taking a wait and see mentality if there was later evidence of me acting on other's actions, but I don't really see that. What I do see if you stirring up a big fuss about nothing.
What I see is you getting awfully defensive about a pretty substantial tell. The most obvious option that you missed was posting something relevant that expressed your current thoughts about the players in the game.
Quote from PhantomS »
I said "our other mason pairs", meaning mason pairs within the game. I really don't see what is strange about that. What I do see is a very, very forced case from you.
I like ZasZ's post. I don't suppose we could lynch him before he posts again and further shakes my absolute certainty that he is scum by virtue of his predecessors' behavior?
Have you ever played a game with AH, Azrael? This is not abnormal behavior from him; in fact, it's par for the course. The problem is, it's par for the course regardless of alignment. Simply prodding there for more information.
If we're looking to meta, how would you characterize Phantom's posting history?
What is it with you and reasonable requests? This is at least the second time I've seen you refuse someone something simple. It's as if you're making an effort to provide nothing to anyone. Why do this?
I think my previous post points out why it isn't a reasonable request.
Quote from Skander »
Also, AH what do you gain by that?
I'm not sure what you're referring to.
@Zasz: Ouch. That was inaccurate and a very convenient way to discredit me.
Have you ever played a game with AH, Azrael? This is not abnormal behavior from him; in fact, it's par for the course. The problem is, it's par for the course regardless of alignment. Simply prodding there for more information.
Well isn't that just a convenient series of conclusions? Could it be because you've been mighty apathetic as well?
Based on the fact you had an aversion to posting, period, and then said nothing noteworthy with your first post today. I've already covered this.
Appeal to sympathy? That wasn't the objective, and I've already discussed that, too. The point was that your reaction was over-the-top.
Are you reading my posts? The issue was that it didn't sync with your previous overreaction to the mason claims. If you thought everyone was a mason, why was it such a big deal that WoD said what he did? It also doesn't jive with the section above.
What I see is you getting awfully defensive about a pretty substantial tell. The most obvious option that you missed was posting something relevant that expressed your current thoughts about the players in the game.
And I see a scum trying to deflect off an attack.
None of this seems substantial or accurate. I'm not terribly impressed.
I think my previous post points out why it isn't a reasonable request.I'm not sure what you're referring to.
A request for you to actually state some solid opinions on someone - anyone - is not reasonable?
Here's the thing. You're a lurker, and you're semi scummy. Some people want to lynch you, others don't. Without any other direction to go in, if you don't bother to give people reasons why they shouldn't lynch you, you're going to get lynched.
I think my previous post points out why it isn't a reasonable request.I'm not sure what you're referring to.
*buzzer sound*
If you say "I think we should lynch X. I think X is scum." or similiar statements, and X requests to see your case, X has made a reasonable request. Failure to comply is at best unhelpful, and at worst scummy. It isn't "put up or shut up", it's put up period. It isn't enough to know your position on a player, we need to know why.
Nor am I. But this response rather sucks. You could at least try.
I will concede that, but that case is just, well, non-compelling. There's talk of an overreaction which as far as I can discern is deemed only so because of the use of the words "God damn", which quite frankly I say very often. Then there is this assumption on his part that I have "aversions" to things, assuming that I'm actively not doing stuff instead of just not doing it, which is beyond presumptuous and inaccurate.
Since you're apparently not going to bother defending yourself and just attempt to discredit my attack, let's try this:
If your attack had merit we wouldn't be in this boat.
What does your scum list look like and why?
I'm not used to games that involve so much replacement, so I have been getting a bit mixed up on that, but here are a few thoughts I have:
Skander has been very erratic. I'm moderately suspicious of him, even if I agree with his actions they have been very obtuse.
I have a gut feeling that either Kraj or Az are scum based on their interactions. Can't really elaborate too much on this, but you asked for a list.
I'm definitely suspicious of you for so adamantly pursuing me based on exaggeration and fabrication, but I don't know if it has matured to the point of pursuing you myself yet. Definitely getting there.
If your attack had merit we wouldn't be in this boat.
Here we go again.
Quote from PhantomS »
I'm not used to games that involve so much replacement, so I have been getting a bit mixed up on that, but here are a few thoughts I have:
That's a fair statement.
Quote from PhantomS »
Skander has been very erratic. I'm moderately suspicious of him, even if I agree with his actions they have been very obtuse.
I have a gut feeling that either Kraj or Az are scum based on their interactions. Can't really elaborate too much on this, but you asked for a list.
I disagree on Skander, but the list is helpful.
Quote from PhantomS »
I'm definitely suspicious of you for so adamantly pursuing me based on exaggeration and fabrication, but I don't know if it has matured to the point of pursuing you myself yet. Definitely getting there.
Is this a threat? Scummy.
Quote from PhantomS »
That's about where I stand.
You got a scum list beyond your jabs at me?
Again, it's apparent you're not reading my posts. I've already been over this.
First off, I just realized that the Kpaca kill may yield us some valuable information.
Kpaca
A number of players yesterday mentioned that they thought Kpaca was reading strongly town. I had a favorable impression that Kpaca was town, but not a strong one, but a number of players trusted him more implicitly.
Evidently, the mafia took those players at their word, and nailed him, as I doubt that a role-based reason was to blame.
If that is so, what players included Kpaca on their clear list? It stands to reason that some mafia, probably a mafia who was dominant in their night discussions, thought that attacking Kpaca would not be fruitful, and that he would function as a cleared tree in the end-game.
So who were those people? I could research this later, but I'd like those who thought Kpaca was clear to say so.
Retaliation Pressure
I also anticipate that the mafia had/has hopes of putting pressure on me after the Xyre lynch. Encouraging the town to bounce back and forth between mislynches while the scum sit idly by is a very common scum pasttime. I would not be surprised to see some players voicing that idea in usually forceful terms to have ulterior motives. *cough zasz cough*
I also think that the end-of-day Xyre wagon votes are likely telling. Both last-minute switches, and determined abstentions, are points of interest for me. Both strike me as stances that were likely to be appealing to mafia.
On DYH vs. Phantom-
I'm reading Phantom's replies as natural, and I think based on both Phantom's and Chris/DYH's prior in-thread history that both sides of this debate are probable town. I did have some uncertainties about Phantom that I mentioned, regarding some bandwagony stances on Kraj, but I don't see any unreal reactions to pressure here, and I can see Phantom taking a face-value approach to Kraj's stunt.
Kraj
Speaking of Kraj, I'd be interested to know why there was a gap in response to my most recent vote and my rationale.
To reiterate, I called Kraj on committing the same tell that I committed in Mod mafia (and referenced in the article thread): implicit in his post was a consciousness of end-game math. Lynch him, and then lynch him, and then game over. A joke, to be sure, but a joke about a course of action that would potentially result in the soonest-possible mafia victory. So I wonder, Kraj, if your night-thinking is influencing your day posts.
Current Suspicions
I remain interested in pressuring Cyan/finity, for the reasons that Xyre and I agreed on. Kraj is a question mark for me, difficult to read; but he has some scattered interesting behaviors, especially in his humor posts. Charmandez also remains a question mark for me; some of Zasz's analysis strikes me as wrong or insincere (particularly on the retaliation point). AH has a meta defense against his current case, and little beyond that incriminating in his record, but I haven't seen any positive townie behaviors that inspire confidence in him.
Look Harder List:
AH (of these four, least interested in AH)
Charmandez
Cyanfinity
Kraj
Cleared 2. Azrael (obv)
4. ChrisXIV DYH (both players natural)
7. PhantomS (natural)
8. Skander (erratic and a little anti-town, but probably natural)
9. Toastboy Pale Mage (Toastboy natural, Pale Mage needs to post more)
10. Wrath_of_Dog (Fairly natural, and the counter-claim DOES strike me as a good point in his favor. I don't think he counter-claims that way as mafia, since the mafia probably had inside knowledge of the setup, and I don't see WoD as having any.)
To reiterate, I called Kraj on committing the same tell that I committed in Mod mafia (and referenced in the article thread): implicit in his post was a consciousness of end-game math. Lynch him, and then lynch him, and then game over. A joke, to be sure, but a joke about a course of action that would potentially result in the soonest-possible mafia victory. So I wonder, Kraj, if your night-thinking is influencing your day posts.
Ah, I was wondering what you meant by that. At first I thought it was a joking response to my own joking post. Then (maybe an hour ago) I realized you were referring to something specific in Mod Mafia but I still hadn't a clue what you were talking about. I didn't recall the reference to your article.
Anywho, there's not much I can say in response to this point. Yes, it was joking because it's a stupid plan. Yes, it does reveal something in my mindset, which is the niggling suspicion that there's a good chance an Azrael who survives to day 3 in a mini after being the primary pusher of a townie and then picking another townie as his top suspect is scum. No, there's no reason whatsoever to accept my explanation over your own, nor vice versa. It's completely WIFOM.
In other news, I'm pretty much right in agreement with you on your lists. I don't find PhantomS's responses particularly scummy, and I agree with him completely that DYH is reaching. I also think DYH is reaching because he's trying to actually find scum and make something happen in this game. I find Pale Mage scummier than you do but I wasn't particularly suspicious of TB. I'd swap you and me on the list; on the surface your analysis and probing behavior screams town to me, but your methods of detecting scum are equally effective at exposing weak townies and creating mislynches that are completely justifiable. And there are things here and there that raise my heckles. For example, you're quite right that scum commonly sit quietly back and let loud townies lynch each other, but it is also true that scum will push hard for mislynches on players when they think they can get away with it. It bothers me that you attack ZasZ on the assumption that he's doing the former rather than he's a townie who thinks you did the latter; without additional points to make a pattern, it's WIFOM. But you immediately take a swing at him, and by doing so pre-emptively discredit whatever case he may make on you. You could be 100% sincere in your analysis, but I'm nowhere near confident you're town.
On that note, I'm interested in why Charmandaz has climbed your suspicious list. I seem to recall you had very little support for my myriad of points on andelijah and charm master.
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 am thoroughly confused as to how Kraj and Azrael see PhantomS' responses as "not particularly scummy" and "natural", respectively. I see someone angry they've been voted and using several logical fallacies to fend off the attack rather than actually address the case.
I'd like to hear from Cyan (who I see is viewing the thread) in particular.
I am thoroughly confused as to how Kraj and Azrael see PhantomS' responses as "not particularly scummy" and "natural", respectively. I see someone angry they've been voted and using several logical fallacies to fend off the attack rather than actually address the case.
From my point of view, he pretty much addressed all the parts of your case he could address. I just don't see the tells in your case and I don't see what there is for him to respond to. The stuff he's ignoring is mostly you stating your interpretations of events without any actual logic to back it up.
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'm not seeing a case against PhantomS. As Kraj said, I feel that he has satisfactorily responded to the points that you made.
I still want people to look more closely at Skander. I mean honestly. He said that the posts in between his 'I don't see Xyre as scum' and 'Vote Xyre' posts made him change his mind. There is *nothing* in those posts. Literally, 3 of them are complete spam, and the other one is just PhantomS rambling. This defense was terrible, and yet somehow, has gone completely unnoticed, even after I brought it up once.
I also anticipate that the mafia had/has hopes of putting pressure on me after the Xyre lynch. Encouraging the town to bounce back and forth between mislynches while the scum sit idly by is a very common scum pasttime. I would not be surprised to see some players voicing that idea in usually forceful terms to have ulterior motives. *cough zasz cough*
I also think that the end-of-day Xyre wagon votes are likely telling. Both last-minute switches, and determined abstentions, are points of interest for me. Both strike me as stances that were likely to be appealing to mafia.
It looks to me you did exactly that. As for the end of day, there were a bunch of people faced with no good decision (including myself) after a slow frustrating day culminating in a ridiculous conclusion. Erratic behavior is not surprising. Maybe we should look at who pushed us to that point?
Quote from Pale Mage »
*buzzer sound*
If you say "I think we should lynch X. I think X is scum." or similiar statements, and X requests to see your case, X has made a reasonable request. Failure to comply is at best unhelpful, and at worst scummy. It isn't "put up or shut up", it's put up period. It isn't enough to know your position on a player, we need to know why.
So...why WoD?
*crosses arms*
*taps foot*
There isn't a case before WoD requests it. There are reasons, usually very simple reasons, but not a series of quotes with a description of the situation, a explanation of possible motivations, and a conclusion. I'm not interested in spending the time making that.
Quote from Kraj »
A request for you to actually state some solid opinions on someone - anyone - is not reasonable?
It looks to me you did exactly that. As for the end of day, there were a bunch of people faced with no good decision (including myself) after a slow frustrating day culminating in a ridiculous conclusion. Erratic behavior is not surprising. Maybe we should look at who pushed us to that point?There isn't a case before WoD requests it. There are reasons, usually very simple reasons, but not a series of quotes with a description of the situation, a explanation of possible motivations, and a conclusion. I'm not interested in spending the time making that.This is not the situation.
Can we get a replacement for Abandon_Hope? He hasn't posted like all game.
There isn't a case before WoD requests it. There are reasons, usually very simple reasons, but not a series of quotes with a description of the situation, a explanation of possible motivations, and a conclusion. I'm not interested in spending the time making that.
I asked "why". I didn't ask what it does or doesn't look like. Just "why". I don't care if you're interested in explaining or not. If you don't, I will assume you are making baseless accusations and hiding behind a wall of hostility, neither of which makes me feel you're working in the interests of the town.
Apparently you guys don't put the same amount of stock in the 'no opinion' post that PhantomS kicked the day off with that I do. I'm unconvinced by your being unconvinced.
I'm going to do another readthrough and evaluate my position on things again; that will likely come Monday.
I developed a similar hypothesis though just based on content in the posts since I replaced in. Can you refer me please to some of those interactions?
* ZasZ234 had typed more, realized being wrong (mixing up PhantomS and Netfinity) and deleted stuff that was really witty so now the post title no longer makes sense
greetings
Z
596 and 597 is a big one, and I assume what you're referring to as well. The two read as chummy, but in a very awkward manner. Neither seems to be actually pursuing the other but it reads like they both feel that jabbing the other is appropriate for some reason. It just seems off. I wish I could articulate this line of thought better.
596 and 597 is a big one, and I assume what you're referring to as well. The two read as chummy, but in a very awkward manner. Neither seems to be actually pursuing the other but it reads like they both feel that jabbing the other is appropriate for some reason. It just seems off. I wish I could articulate this line of thought better.
We understand each other, is all.
I would be interested in you elaborating on this, though.
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.
596 and 597 is a big one, and I assume what you're referring to as well. The two read as chummy, but in a very awkward manner. Neither seems to be actually pursuing the other but it reads like they both feel that jabbing the other is appropriate for some reason. It just seems off. I wish I could articulate this line of thought better.
I believe the word usually used to express this kind of suspicion is "distancing".
I would be interested in you elaborating on this, though.
I was looking over and trying to articulate myself better, and all I can really say is I read something of a virulent chumyness. The nature of such a thing is necessarily something that I cannot prove, so as of now it's a hunch at best.
Not voting: PhantomS, Pale Mage, Abandon Hope, Andelijah
With 10 alive, it's 6 to lynch.
There's at least some discussion going on, but there will be a round of prods sent out Monday evening if you haven't posted in 3 days. If that is you, get something up before then, or I shall smite thee.
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 asked "why". I didn't ask what it does or doesn't look like. Just "why". I don't care if you're interested in explaining or not. If you don't, I will assume you are making baseless accusations and hiding behind a wall of hostility, neither of which makes me feel you're working in the interests of the town.
Is that all then? I've been heckled this entire time for something I answered that half the thread ago? Indiscriminate opportunism. Pleased to be done with this nonsense.
Is that all then? I've been heckled this entire time for something I answered that half the thread ago? Indiscriminate opportunism. Pleased to be done with this nonsense.
You think I'm heckling? Quit being evasive. If you can articulate your suspicions, do so. Or admit you cannot and you had nothing. In fact, I'd like to see your top three suspects and WHY you suspect them.
I'm not hiding from anything. Your accusation might be more convincing if there were other players attacking me as well instead of you just repeating again and again that I'm so obviously scum. I've already answered everything you've attacked me for; you don't like the answers, fair enough, but the idea that I'm hiding from this thread is preposterous, I have no reason to do so. But of course you didn't think about what reason I would have for hiding from the thread because you've put your blinders on again.
The only reason I haven't been posting in this thread is that it's a dead game. Every once in a while a couple of posts will pop up but give it a day or two and the thread will stagnate again. yes, it would be awesome if I had the motivation to post but I don't. I would have requested replacement a long time ago, if I had thought that was fair to the game.
The only reason I haven't been posting in this thread is that it's a dead game.
Chicken or egg, sir?
Granted, this game is moving slowly, but allowing a game to stagnate completely doesn't serve anyone's interests. Assuming you're town, the best way to break a log jam is to increase your activity. Even if you don't end up catching anyone yourself, if other people can clear you on behavior it tightens the noose on the scum that much more.
Granted, this game is moving slowly, but allowing a game to stagnate completely doesn't serve anyone's interests. Assuming you're town, the best way to break a log jam is to increase your activity. Even if you don't end up catching anyone yourself, if other people can clear you on behavior it tightens the noose on the scum that much more.
Why do you think Cyan is attacking you?
Well if he's scum I doubt he would be attacking me (a player who on D1 had several people say that they think is town and nobody thought was really scummy) so I think that he's town and his attack is genuine. However he's failing to take into account my arguments and more importantly he fails to address the flipside of the equation: Fine, maybe thing X that I did doesn't make much sense as town, but where's the scum motivation for it (for a very recent example of this, his accusation that I've been hiding from the thread).
Seriously, if you think this question is actually all Skander has to bring up to counter Cyan's accusation, then you must also think Cyan cannot back up his observation.
I think that I wanted to see Skander respond to Cyan before I saw anyone else answer for him, or do you have that strong a town read on Skander? Or that strong a scum read on Cyan?
This though would mean that you yourself doubt the observation that Skander is actively hiding and should support my question rather than react with a "Noted" to Cyan - or at very least you should let it pass, because the doubt is justified.
I believe that townies do not (or at the very least, should not) duck a thread when any pressure is applied, regardless of how minimal. Cyan's observation is fair. It would be awful of me to ignore a fair criticism regardless of how I feel about Cyan's predecessor.
Contradiction: You are at the same time fond enough of Cyan's position to support it (by opposing my question and "noting" it), but are unsure enough of it to think my simple question for further explanation could debunk it.
Given the flow of this game, I want the best information out of the trickle of posts. You chiming in before Skander doesn't give me that.
What now, PM? Is Cyan's point a strong one or a weak one?
Strong in and of itself? No, but it is significant enough to take note of. I'm happy to lend my support to that kind of thing. If Skander has the town's interests at heart, then the behavior is easy to correct. If not, cake and ice cream for everyone.
But you said "either/or", which translates to "exactly one of them". I also thought you meant that, when I asked you to elaborate; I read the possible distancing not as something "chummy".
That doesn't make much sense. There is a huge difference between "either or" and the scumbuddying point you made after that. I can't think how you would mix this up if you genuinely thought they were scumbuddies.
That doesn't make much sense. There is a huge difference between "either or" and the scumbuddying point you made after that. I can't think how you would mix this up if you genuinely thought they were scumbuddies.
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.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
Have you ever played a game with AH, Azrael? This is not abnormal behavior from him; in fact, it's par for the course. The problem is, it's par for the course regardless of alignment. Simply prodding there for more information.
Well isn't that just a convenient series of conclusions? Could it be because you've been mighty apathetic as well?
Based on the fact you had an aversion to posting, period, and then said nothing noteworthy with your first post today. I've already covered this.
Appeal to sympathy? That wasn't the objective, and I've already discussed that, too. The point was that your reaction was over-the-top.
Are you reading my posts? The issue was that it didn't sync with your previous overreaction to the mason claims. If you thought everyone was a mason, why was it such a big deal that WoD said what he did? It also doesn't jive with the section above.
What I see is you getting awfully defensive about a pretty substantial tell. The most obvious option that you missed was posting something relevant that expressed your current thoughts about the players in the game.
And I see a scum trying to deflect off an attack.
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
Funny. I had the opposite reaction.
If we're looking to meta, how would you characterize Phantom's posting history?
An entire pie?
Damn, baby....
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
@Zasz: Ouch. That was inaccurate and a very convenient way to discredit me.
None of this seems substantial or accurate. I'm not terribly impressed.
A request for you to actually state some solid opinions on someone - anyone - is not reasonable?
Here's the thing. You're a lurker, and you're semi scummy. Some people want to lynch you, others don't. Without any other direction to go in, if you don't bother to give people reasons why they shouldn't lynch you, you're going to get lynched.
Nor am I. But this response rather sucks. You could at least try.
Then again, half the people in this game can't be bothered to play it, so whatever.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
*buzzer sound*
If you say "I think we should lynch X. I think X is scum." or similiar statements, and X requests to see your case, X has made a reasonable request. Failure to comply is at best unhelpful, and at worst scummy. It isn't "put up or shut up", it's put up period. It isn't enough to know your position on a player, we need to know why.
So...why WoD?
*crosses arms*
*taps foot*
Considering he has no play history here that I'm aware of, I can't very well do that, now can I?
And I'd say you're wrong on both accounts. Care to actually respond?
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
I will concede that, but that case is just, well, non-compelling. There's talk of an overreaction which as far as I can discern is deemed only so because of the use of the words "God damn", which quite frankly I say very often. Then there is this assumption on his part that I have "aversions" to things, assuming that I'm actively not doing stuff instead of just not doing it, which is beyond presumptuous and inaccurate.
DYH, what you're doing is digging at best.
Since you're apparently not going to bother defending yourself and just attempt to discredit my attack, let's try this:
What does your scum list look like and why?
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
Worthless perhaps, but appropriate.
If your attack had merit we wouldn't be in this boat.
I'm not used to games that involve so much replacement, so I have been getting a bit mixed up on that, but here are a few thoughts I have:
Skander has been very erratic. I'm moderately suspicious of him, even if I agree with his actions they have been very obtuse.
I have a gut feeling that either Kraj or Az are scum based on their interactions. Can't really elaborate too much on this, but you asked for a list.
I'm definitely suspicious of you for so adamantly pursuing me based on exaggeration and fabrication, but I don't know if it has matured to the point of pursuing you myself yet. Definitely getting there.
That's about where I stand.
You got a scum list beyond your jabs at me?
Nope.
Here we go again.
That's a fair statement.
I disagree on Skander, but the list is helpful.
Is this a threat? Scummy.
Again, it's apparent you're not reading my posts. I've already been over this.
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
Kpaca
A number of players yesterday mentioned that they thought Kpaca was reading strongly town. I had a favorable impression that Kpaca was town, but not a strong one, but a number of players trusted him more implicitly.
Evidently, the mafia took those players at their word, and nailed him, as I doubt that a role-based reason was to blame.
If that is so, what players included Kpaca on their clear list? It stands to reason that some mafia, probably a mafia who was dominant in their night discussions, thought that attacking Kpaca would not be fruitful, and that he would function as a cleared tree in the end-game.
So who were those people? I could research this later, but I'd like those who thought Kpaca was clear to say so.
Retaliation Pressure
I also anticipate that the mafia had/has hopes of putting pressure on me after the Xyre lynch. Encouraging the town to bounce back and forth between mislynches while the scum sit idly by is a very common scum pasttime. I would not be surprised to see some players voicing that idea in usually forceful terms to have ulterior motives. *cough zasz cough*
I also think that the end-of-day Xyre wagon votes are likely telling. Both last-minute switches, and determined abstentions, are points of interest for me. Both strike me as stances that were likely to be appealing to mafia.
On DYH vs. Phantom-
I'm reading Phantom's replies as natural, and I think based on both Phantom's and Chris/DYH's prior in-thread history that both sides of this debate are probable town. I did have some uncertainties about Phantom that I mentioned, regarding some bandwagony stances on Kraj, but I don't see any unreal reactions to pressure here, and I can see Phantom taking a face-value approach to Kraj's stunt.
Kraj
Speaking of Kraj, I'd be interested to know why there was a gap in response to my most recent vote and my rationale.
To reiterate, I called Kraj on committing the same tell that I committed in Mod mafia (and referenced in the article thread): implicit in his post was a consciousness of end-game math. Lynch him, and then lynch him, and then game over. A joke, to be sure, but a joke about a course of action that would potentially result in the soonest-possible mafia victory. So I wonder, Kraj, if your night-thinking is influencing your day posts.
Current Suspicions
I remain interested in pressuring Cyan/finity, for the reasons that Xyre and I agreed on. Kraj is a question mark for me, difficult to read; but he has some scattered interesting behaviors, especially in his humor posts. Charmandez also remains a question mark for me; some of Zasz's analysis strikes me as wrong or insincere (particularly on the retaliation point). AH has a meta defense against his current case, and little beyond that incriminating in his record, but I haven't seen any positive townie behaviors that inspire confidence in him.
Look Harder List:
AH (of these four, least interested in AH)
Charmandez
Cyanfinity
Kraj
Cleared
2. Azrael (obv)
4. ChrisXIV DYH (both players natural)
7. PhantomS (natural)
8. Skander (erratic and a little anti-town, but probably natural)
9. Toastboy Pale Mage (Toastboy natural, Pale Mage needs to post more)
10. Wrath_of_Dog (Fairly natural, and the counter-claim DOES strike me as a good point in his favor. I don't think he counter-claims that way as mafia, since the mafia probably had inside knowledge of the setup, and I don't see WoD as having any.)
What do you mean by "gap in response"?
Ah, I was wondering what you meant by that. At first I thought it was a joking response to my own joking post. Then (maybe an hour ago) I realized you were referring to something specific in Mod Mafia but I still hadn't a clue what you were talking about. I didn't recall the reference to your article.
Anywho, there's not much I can say in response to this point. Yes, it was joking because it's a stupid plan. Yes, it does reveal something in my mindset, which is the niggling suspicion that there's a good chance an Azrael who survives to day 3 in a mini after being the primary pusher of a townie and then picking another townie as his top suspect is scum. No, there's no reason whatsoever to accept my explanation over your own, nor vice versa. It's completely WIFOM.
In other news, I'm pretty much right in agreement with you on your lists. I don't find PhantomS's responses particularly scummy, and I agree with him completely that DYH is reaching. I also think DYH is reaching because he's trying to actually find scum and make something happen in this game. I find Pale Mage scummier than you do but I wasn't particularly suspicious of TB. I'd swap you and me on the list; on the surface your analysis and probing behavior screams town to me, but your methods of detecting scum are equally effective at exposing weak townies and creating mislynches that are completely justifiable. And there are things here and there that raise my heckles. For example, you're quite right that scum commonly sit quietly back and let loud townies lynch each other, but it is also true that scum will push hard for mislynches on players when they think they can get away with it. It bothers me that you attack ZasZ on the assumption that he's doing the former rather than he's a townie who thinks you did the latter; without additional points to make a pattern, it's WIFOM. But you immediately take a swing at him, and by doing so pre-emptively discredit whatever case he may make on you. You could be 100% sincere in your analysis, but I'm nowhere near confident you're town.
On that note, I'm interested in why Charmandaz has climbed your suspicious list. I seem to recall you had very little support for my myriad of points on andelijah and charm master.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
I'd like to hear from Cyan (who I see is viewing the thread) in particular.
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
From my point of view, he pretty much addressed all the parts of your case he could address. I just don't see the tells in your case and I don't see what there is for him to respond to. The stuff he's ignoring is mostly you stating your interpretations of events without any actual logic to back it up.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
I still want people to look more closely at Skander. I mean honestly. He said that the posts in between his 'I don't see Xyre as scum' and 'Vote Xyre' posts made him change his mind. There is *nothing* in those posts. Literally, 3 of them are complete spam, and the other one is just PhantomS rambling. This defense was terrible, and yet somehow, has gone completely unnoticed, even after I brought it up once.
I asked "why". I didn't ask what it does or doesn't look like. Just "why". I don't care if you're interested in explaining or not. If you don't, I will assume you are making baseless accusations and hiding behind a wall of hostility, neither of which makes me feel you're working in the interests of the town.
Joke or honest request, WoD?
Current thoughts on PhantomS?
I'm going to do another readthrough and evaluate my position on things again; that will likely come Monday.
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
596 and 597 is a big one, and I assume what you're referring to as well. The two read as chummy, but in a very awkward manner. Neither seems to be actually pursuing the other but it reads like they both feel that jabbing the other is appropriate for some reason. It just seems off. I wish I could articulate this line of thought better.
We understand each other, is all.
I would be interested in you elaborating on this, though.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
I was looking over and trying to articulate myself better, and all I can really say is I read something of a virulent chumyness. The nature of such a thing is necessarily something that I cannot prove, so as of now it's a hunch at best.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
Abandon Hope - 2 (WoD, Skander)
PhantomS - 1 (DYH)
Pale Mage - 1 (Kraj)
Kraj - 1 (Azrael)
Skander - 1 (Cyan)
Not voting: PhantomS, Pale Mage, Abandon Hope, Andelijah
With 10 alive, it's 6 to lynch.
There's at least some discussion going on, but there will be a round of prods sent out Monday evening if you haven't posted in 3 days. If that is you, get something up before then, or I shall smite thee.
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.
If you and Az are scum then it is true that you or Az is scum.
This is starting to get ridiculous; he is clearly hiding from this thread.
You think I'm heckling? Quit being evasive. If you can articulate your suspicions, do so. Or admit you cannot and you had nothing. In fact, I'd like to see your top three suspects and WHY you suspect them.
In the meantime, have one of these:
Vote: Abandon Hope
Noted.
Why are you answering for Skander?
The only reason I haven't been posting in this thread is that it's a dead game. Every once in a while a couple of posts will pop up but give it a day or two and the thread will stagnate again. yes, it would be awesome if I had the motivation to post but I don't. I would have requested replacement a long time ago, if I had thought that was fair to the game.
Chicken or egg, sir?
Granted, this game is moving slowly, but allowing a game to stagnate completely doesn't serve anyone's interests. Assuming you're town, the best way to break a log jam is to increase your activity. Even if you don't end up catching anyone yourself, if other people can clear you on behavior it tightens the noose on the scum that much more.
Why do you think Cyan is attacking you?
Well if he's scum I doubt he would be attacking me (a player who on D1 had several people say that they think is town and nobody thought was really scummy) so I think that he's town and his attack is genuine. However he's failing to take into account my arguments and more importantly he fails to address the flipside of the equation: Fine, maybe thing X that I did doesn't make much sense as town, but where's the scum motivation for it (for a very recent example of this, his accusation that I've been hiding from the thread).
I have good vibes from ZasZ. Probing questions, good mindset. Pale Mage had the obvious response to Skander, not gleaning much from that.
PhantomS' comments on Kraj/Az are questionable, adding to his trend of scummy posts.
I don't think I'm going to have time for the full re-read today.
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
In this particular instance, yes.
Questions are answers.
I think that I wanted to see Skander respond to Cyan before I saw anyone else answer for him, or do you have that strong a town read on Skander? Or that strong a scum read on Cyan?
I believe that townies do not (or at the very least, should not) duck a thread when any pressure is applied, regardless of how minimal. Cyan's observation is fair. It would be awful of me to ignore a fair criticism regardless of how I feel about Cyan's predecessor.
Given the flow of this game, I want the best information out of the trickle of posts. You chiming in before Skander doesn't give me that.
Strong in and of itself? No, but it is significant enough to take note of. I'm happy to lend my support to that kind of thing. If Skander has the town's interests at heart, then the behavior is easy to correct. If not, cake and ice cream for everyone.
Hmm, so I did say that. Apparently I misspoke.
That doesn't make much sense. There is a huge difference between "either or" and the scumbuddying point you made after that. I can't think how you would mix this up if you genuinely thought they were scumbuddies.
Unvote, Vote PhantomS
Blatant Opportunism Go!
Sarcastic Unhelpful Comments Go!