OMG between kpaca and Seppel, this thread is gonna hit Inheritance proportions.
@alx2- I am apparently not a normal player. I deal with one issue at a time. I made my thoughts on the Chris wagon known and that's it. I also seem to remember offering alternatives (in a roundabout way). I said I'd be looking at the voters of Chris's and my wagon. Sadly, work is busy right now and I don't have time just this moment to do so, but I will.
as far as the skander wagon goes, I'm looking forward to seeing a thought out case against him with actual posts to prove points. I've never played with him before so I don't have a baseline to compare against, and I'm inherently wary of Seppel style analysis "He's scummy because he's posting differently than the last time I played with him, but I can't be bothered to post any proof."
Could either the attacker (bil) or skander, link to some evidence that shows that he how his posting here is different? I must say I'm still not understanding it.
First off, it's not an attack, it's just a statement. When I was away from the game, I experienced some rust upon returning. I think that it's the same thing here. I'll provide examples later today when I have more time.
Here goes another one. Anything to say at all or are you just following the newest fad?:p
"Here goes another one" is a subtle jab at the voter. I'd hardly call a couple votes on you a "fad", you seem extremely concerned that you've entered the spotlight.
The rest of his post looked serious to me and I hope this answers your questions.
@Alx2: Let me think...less-than-convincing reasons...there was that incident in Newb #30(starting at this page) where I nearly self-destructed because I thought the attack on me was based on less-than-convincing reasons. Is that good enough for you?
The last line kpaca has already brought to your attention, but it definitely reads like "will you look at this and determine it's how I react as a townie and move on, please?".
The overall impression I get from your posts is that you just want this pressure gone; not that you really want to resolve it.
I suppose I should be mad that you aren't going to listen to my advice about meta'ing but I'd rather ask you what exactly strikes you as different about my posting here as opposed to my posting in Ster Trek. Be specific.
I found the exact post I wanted to find from Star Trek.
PM: So you were serious, interesting. Now that you ask about looking over the player list I suppose I can sort of see a reason why it might be scummy but it's not really that great of a reason...
Compare the above wishy-washiness to the below cut and dry:
Using SSB as a springboard on to loran really isn't a good idea. Unless you missed it, SSB was scum and Loran was the main force pushing for his lynch.
Furthermore, you use me one of your reasons yet in the next part throw a FoS on me. If you think I am scum it's not a good idea to base things off me.
Loran has said he can't explain Ahsaver's play. Was Ahsaver's play scummy? Yes. Has it been explained? No. Is the fact that Loran can't explain it scummy? No. Loran is a replacement and obviously can't know what was going on in Ahsavers head. That's certainly not the best thing for the town, but since it can't be remedied why are you happy killing him?
iLord is very townie, yet even so you're pretty much saying you're just going to wait for his next move to act. Why can't you find someone else's slip-ups?
I don't understand this accusation.
Can't find the post in question. Please link it.
You know when I unvoted, it was off of Ahsaver/loran, not off SSB.
Nah not really. I asked him if he knew what armlx knew about him. He chose to reveal what he knew.
To which I asked for clarification and received none.
And Wuffles thinks you should stop talking. But anyway, I never saw Wuffles say he thought I was stupid, he just didn't like one ore two things tha I did.
Skander usually tells it as it is. This time not so much.
Either I'm just struggling to understand this post because Niv kidnapped you when you wrote it, or or I'm inferring that you're straddling a very large fence; which would you say it is?
1) "R U srs" was a rhetoric question. But I think you know that already. 2) What is wrong/nervous/overreacting about assuming PM's reasoning?
3) It was a subtle jab at the voter. All he said was "HRM Vote". I wanted to hear more. I don't see a problem with this.:B: 4) What part of my post seems extremely concerned? 5) What part of my post is overreacting?
6) You see...my reaction in Newb #30 was different. You don't see me voting myself right now, do you? And I'm also not going around attacking everyone who comes into my line of sight.
I think we're deep enough in this I'd like to hear your thoughts on the folks on your wagon. Be as specific as you can. Feel free to include those who have moved on, as well.
@Seppel- Was the Star Trek quote from the beginning of that game, or deep into it? The difference is worth looking at and I want to make sure we're comparing apples to apples.
What's wrong with this game ? Little things get blown out of proportion (Chris' self vote), which creates noise, which is then blown out of proportion. Calm down people, we want to find scummy behaviour, not create it.
I will be without internet access tomorrow and the day after that. When I'm back, my schedule should be free again, so I should be able to retrieve my usual posting rhythm and quality.
Sometimes, small behaviors can be scummy behaviors.
Niv: I still don't really understand how overexplaining something is scummy. Where's the scum motivation? I don't get how adding two lines of explanation is trying to make my post look like it is more than it is.
there is a diffrence between overexplaning and fluf posting. you were explaning what you were just asked if you did, after you did it. the "yes" woulda been enough, but that post reads as though you were simply just adding words to make it look like your post had content.
A)Chris HAS been scummy, for reasons already stated.
B)Skander's actions towards Chris(and his defense of said actions) are scummier than Chris' actions themselves. The reasons why this is the case have already been stated, I don't need to restate them.
DYH - Attacks me because the tone of my posts is suspicious. Attacks Skander at the same time. Serious and logical. Still trying to figure out more about him.
Pale Mage - The leader of the attack. His post started the wagon on me. Makes sense in his attack, seems convinced of his reasoning(that's a plus, in case anyone was wondering;)).
mystery meat of doom - Jumped on the wagon early without any explanation at all. Misunderstood PM's post(thought it was a joke, therefore the vote on me), keeps the vote because "something about me still seems off". Barely any content beside the bandwagoning.
kpaca - He makes sure that everybody understands why I should be attacked. Much repetition because of that. Stays on my wagon. Standard kpaca behavior.
Skander - Accused me of not confronting DYH because he mistook DYH for PM. Didn't notice this mistake until much later. Continued to attack me. When PM revealed that he was serious, "this changes things" but nothing changed.
Cyan - Dropped the attack after one post and locked on Skander. Two three posts in total, not much to say about him.
Do you care to make judgements as to the alignment of any of the players, or are you just making a summary of the game for us to read
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!
mystery meat of doom - Jumped on the wagon early without any explanation at all. Misunderstood PM's post(thought it was a joke, therefore the vote on me), keeps the vote because "something about me still seems off". Barely any content beside the bandwagoning.
If you read carefully you'd understand why I voted you.
A)Chris HAS been scummy, for reasons already stated.
B)Skander's actions towards Chris(and his defense of said actions) are scummier than Chris' actions themselves. The reasons why this is the case have already been stated, I don't need to restate them.
Actually I'd rather you restate them. You're saying that my actions toward Chris (and my defense) were scummy. Please explain how they were scummy. The reasons I've seen so far have been poor (Niv's argument about my post padding and Yodavader's misrep of what I did with the argument I found after PM commented about the player list checking being a scumtell)
Chris: "this changes things" doesn't change anything about how you reacted - it changes my opinion of PM's vote.
Seppel: Wait, so you were looking for a specific post amongst 126 of them to prove a point? If you're right that my play is so off wouldn't any old post do?
Besides I still don't agree with the meta argument. My posts here do not strike me as any different than my posts there.
The last game I was in (Tales of the Fantastic - I was town) someone made a meta argument against me as well - I didn't see it there, I don't see it here.
@Seppel- Was the Star Trek quote from the beginning of that game, or deep into it? The difference is worth looking at and I want to make sure we're comparing apples to apples.
First off, thank you seppel, your doing that prevented me from having to go back and dredgeing through Alicia Blake mafia.
However, my point was just that his play was off, not scummy. I reiterate, it could just be rust, like I had when I returned from my long absence from mafia.
Or it could have been a change in playstyle. He's been in a good number of games since, and I can personally say my playstyle has changed since last december.
I'm also not seeing the Chris wagon. I don't see him as scummy enough to warrant the attention he's been getting, and I've been satisfied with his defense.
On the other hand, I've not been liking Alx. I was a bit wary of his last post, and his most recent one is even worse.
So, this brings me to the question "what would scums do"? In the face of this wagon, they would probably be split between (a) trying to get on withoutreally understanding the reasons, and (b) belittling the wagon without offering alternatives.
Skander and Shadow Knight!?
I don't see how this can possibly be good analysis--rather than looking at the two current wagons and trying to find out if they are scummy or not, he's taking them and looking for reasons he can make them out to be scummy--not to mention he's sitting on the fence by laying suspicion on both of the town's suspects.
I don't know if nom is town or scum. But I'd like to point out this type of behavior is his standard modus operandi.
Court Mafia: Day 1, hatch plan to KILL EVERYONE ELSE IN A SINGLE NIGHT, when the plan only allows him to hit 11 random players, ATTEMPTS TO FIRE ANYHOW (Roleblocked).
In other words....Nom is an impulsive player who doesn't think about planning long-term or listening to others. I wouldn't be surprised if he was town. At all.
Amazing. Is there enough room in the thread for that ego?
On a serious note, I don't care how rational your argument or if Chris is caught scum to boot. You could be bussing him , you could be playing the "helpful analytical" scum that I've seen in every game here, the point is that no one is an impossible lynch Day 1.
You tried to unilaterally start a softclaim. The argument "what would it gain [you]" is just deflecting the point. If you wanted a soft claim, why not come out and say it directly. Backdooring it, is scummy.
As to Chris and his three votes issue, the idea that he's used to small size games and panicked at three votes (even with one being his own and one being random) is just as valid as caught scum trying to stop the wagon. All other things being equal, he says he's foreign so I took his expalantions at face value.
Since my post several good analyses have popped up. Very swaying argument from DYH.
The Skander wagon is very-meta ladden. Yes Skander is often firmer in his opinions but I find that to be more so as the game progresses. (as has been pointed out by others before me)
If pressed to chose between the two wagons, as of right now, I'd say Chris wagon is stronger.
I'm amused that [Shalako], of all people, are talking about terrible reasoning. "Hey, PF's RVS daykill must be serious, therefore I should shoot him to prove that I have a daykill!"
The last line kpaca has already brought to your attention, but it definitely reads like "will you look at this and determine it's how I react as a townie and move on, please?".
The overall impression I get from your posts is that you just want this pressure gone; not that you really want to resolve it.
First comment: The last line is Chris answering a specific question that was asked of him. You are definitely reading too much into it.
Second comment: What would it look like if he was trying to resolve it?
Do you care to make judgements as to the alignment of any of the players, or are you just making a summary of the game for us to read
And here's kpaca doing the same thing DYH did above. Chris was asked a straight question, responded to it, and now his straight answer is being presented as scummy. Why?
On the other hand, I've not been liking Alx. I was a bit wary of his last post, and his most recent one is even worse.
So, this brings me to the question "what would scums do"? In the face of this wagon, they would probably be split between (a) trying to get on withoutreally understanding the reasons, and (b) belittling the wagon without offering alternatives.
Skander and Shadow Knight!?
I don't see how this can possibly be good analysis--rather than looking at the two current wagons and trying to find out if they are scummy or not, he's taking them and looking for reasons he can make them out to be scummy--not to mention he's sitting on the fence by laying suspicion on both of the town's suspects.
First, neither Skander nor SK are the top suspect (or at least have been at the time, I see Skander is now tied with Chris).
Second, I did look at the top wagon. And I did "try to find out if he's scummy". Which is in a part of my post not shown here because you left it out of your quote.
Is Alx2 always this flaky? My feeling is that flaky=scummy, but if he's just always this lame, maybe my read's off. Seriously, I haven't actually seen a direction in any of his posts yet.
If there's a legitimate argument against Skander, it's really that he's appearance focused instead of identity focused. I haven't actually played with Skander, but I'm curious if that's outside the norm.
I fail to see anything abnormal in the Chris/Skander relationship, except for perhaps an abundance of flakiness. Seems like there's a lot of that in this game....
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.
Amazing. Is there enough room in the thread for that ego?
Arrogance is part of my charm.
On a serious note, I don't care how rational your argument or if Chris is caught scum to boot.
You...don't? This should be interesting...
You could be bussing him....
So in that scenario I decided to roar into the random stage and bus a scumbuddy, not only inviting undo attention upon him, but possibly myself, and profit how, exactly? This doesn't pass the sniff test.
...you could be playing the "helpful analytical" scum that I've seen in every game here...
If I am, I seem to be playing it rather poorly. Most folks don't like the initial attack at all. Chris garnered votes based on his reaction, not my attack. In this scenario I imagine Chris is not scum, correct?
...the point is that no one is an impossible lynch Day 1.
True enough, but you won't be lynching me.
You tried to unilaterally start a softclaim.
I didn't, actually. I claimed myself because I wanted the information out there in case it matters. I was surprised that I wasn't a Led Zep tune, and that got my wheels turning. If it does matter, then I've done a good thing. If it doesn't matter, then no harm no foul.
The argument "what would it gain [you]" is just deflecting the point.
Uh, no. It's logic. Revealing role information of any kind without expectation or invitation isn't something done without purpose. It immediately attracts attention to oneself. Attracting attention to oneself is not something scum do without purpose. Where's the benefit?
If you wanted a soft claim, why not come out and say it directly. Backdooring it, is scummy.
Because I didn't want one. Still don't. If it matters to anybody that I'm not a Led Zep tune they have that information. That's it.
As to Chris and his three votes issue, the idea that he's used to small size games and panicked at three votes (even with one being his own and one being random) is just as valid as caught scum trying to stop the wagon.
As I recall, Chris said he doesn't care about the size of the game. It's just a hard and fast rule in his head.
All other things being equal, he says he's foreign so I took his expalantions at face value.
I don't understand what his nationality has to do with anything, outside of the eyebrow smiley which he has explained as cultural.
@Alx2: You're entitled to your opinion, but I don't think I'm reading too much into that statement at all. It looks entirely to me as I just stated, like he's asking if that's enough to get people off his back. As for resolution, in the same context, I'd expect he'd walk through the example, not just hope his link was "good enough for you".
FoS: Keeperofzion for being lazy. Seriously, the thread isn't that big, read and figure out why the wagon started on Skander. Do you know why there's still a wagon on Chris? Who do you think is scum?
The initial attack on me was because I read too carefully.;)
Tbh, i don't quite see the scuminess of voting for yourself twice in RVS because your name was spelled wrong. For now, it just makes a 'weird' impression on me rather than a 'scummy' one.
FoS: Keeperofzion for being lazy. Seriously, the thread isn't that big, read and figure out why the wagon started on Skander. Do you know why there's still a wagon on Chris? Who do you think is scum?
Okay, since you insist, i'll read more thoroughly.
So the wagon starts when Seppel votes Skander for posting differently compared to a previous game.
Quote from Niv »
ok, the long winded explantion is pointless here. you answer yes, then explain how you did what you were just asked if you did. why? is there anything helpful here, no. the entire post is padding. waste of time, and scummy. UnVote, Vote Skander much better first wagon.
I see the justification in this.
Quote from Skander »
Waste of time maybe. But how is it scummy?
This response is peculiar. Don't you see that the fact that it is a waste of time already shows its scuminess?
Quote from Cyan »
Hmmm. I think that Seppel might be onto something with that last post. Unvote, Vote Skander
I agree. In that previous game, Skander seemed to be really pro-active. but now, i notice the difference.
@Seppel: How long ago was it since that last game, and what alignment did Skander turn out to be?
So generally, right now, i have no strong certainties yet, although Skander seems to be leaning more in the Scum-side than Chris.
A)Chris HAS been scummy, for reasons already stated.
B)Skander's actions towards Chris(and his defense of said actions) are scummier than Chris' actions themselves. The reasons why this is the case have already been stated, I don't need to restate them.
Really cyan, don't you normaly add your own content? and your also more deciscive. also, if you don;t restate the reasons AT LEAST, in your own words, it feels alot like blatent bandwagoning. it also helps beacuse it adds a new version of the case, adding new oponions, new logic, and new analysis. but you know this, and it feels like your just being incredibly lazy.
Is Alx2 always this flaky? My feeling is that flaky=scummy, but if he's just always this lame, maybe my read's off. Seriously, I haven't actually seen a direction in any of his posts yet.
If there's a legitimate argument against Skander, it's really that he's appearance focused instead of identity focused. I haven't actually played with Skander, but I'm curious if that's outside the norm.
I fail to see anything abnormal in the Chris/Skander relationship, except for perhaps an abundance of flakiness. Seems like there's a lot of that in this game....
This post feals like nothing but hypocracry. feels like your just as flaky if not more than what your discribing in the "Chris/Skander relationship"
and there is a Skander wagon as well. could anyone explain exactly how this one started?
Hmm, could you read the thread yourself. it's not hard to miss, this question makes me feel like your nor reading every post, which "can" be a bad thing.
Well, I still feel that Skander is the scummiest person at the moment. And I don't care how he acted in the other games. I haven't played too many games here and when I did play, it was a while ago. So, at least for now, playstyles mean mostly nothing to me.
Another person who has popped up on my scumdar is Cyan. The bandwagoning on Chris and then jumping onto Skander (without much of a reason, save for saying that Seppel had a good post against him) and then the other posts saying that he agrees with the Skander wagon, yet doesn't post any arguments of his own.
And on a side note: Damn it Niv, always beating me to the post.
On a different side note: I have tomorrow off of work and I usually don't post on weekends so after today, I probably won't post again until Monday.
Is Alx2 always this flaky? My feeling is that flaky=scummy, but if he's just always this lame, maybe my read's off. Seriously, I haven't actually seen a direction in any of his posts yet.
I'm gonna put that on rust on Alx's part, being that he did retire a while back, and is just now pulling a Favre.
Yodavader: Why didn't you address the flaw I pointed out in your reasons for voting me? If you think I'm a valid wagon then how is Cyan scummy?
Chris: Not really. The point is that the reaction to that post shouldn't have assumed it was serious. The fact that it ultimately was serious doesn't change what the initial reaction should have been.
Yodavader: Why didn't you address the flaw I pointed out in your reasons for voting me? If you think I'm a valid wagon then how is Cyan scummy?
It seems to me that you were willing to take the name scouring as a valid reason for a vote. Along with the reaction to the reaction, that was good enough for me to vote.
Here's why I think Cyan is scummy. He was quick to jump on the Chris wagon. Then when it was pointed out that you were another wagon, he jumped on that. When he was asked to provide his own reasons, he said that he didn't need to restate them. I think that it's bussing. Seems to me that he is willing to jump on whatever wagon is going, doesn't matter who the wagon is on. Like I said before, there needs to be reasons for a vote. "I agree...blah, blah, blah...vote" is not a valid reason in my book.
We've gone through this before. I've heard your reasoning already. I am going to look back when I get the chance and see if it makes sense to me that you would assume it was serious.
I'm happy we didn't have to suffer through a prolonged random stage, but the Chris wagon was much ado about nothing, and I remain suspicious of PM for starting it.
Sorry for my low level of activity, I always take a while to get warmed up in games this size, especially with 5-6 people I haven't played with before. That, and I've been trying to force through the signups for my basic, which was unusually draining.
Is Alx2 always this flaky? My feeling is that flaky=scummy, but if he's just always this lame, maybe my read's off. Seriously, I haven't actually seen a direction in any of his posts yet.
I've always found Alx2 rather easy to read. He may have changed his tells since he stopped playing, but historically he's played to his alignment. So far he is town.
I've always found Alx2 rather easy to read. He may have changed his tells since he stopped playing, but historically he's played to his alignment. So far he is town.
So when he's town, he fails to have opinions? Lame.
I don't like Cyan's play right now, but I never like Cyan's play. I've played with him a handful of times, and I've never really trusted my read on him.
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.
KeeperofZion has played before, right? the name looks familiar and yet the not reading the thread at all seems to point to not knowing what he is doing. And yet when told to find it himself he gets most of it, yet still asks questions he can find the answers too regarding how old the game with the skander posts is. It looks like he is trying to play dumb even though he could figure it all out. Why he would do such a thing, I dont know, but something does not seem right.
Day one and somebody is already suspended. I wonder if the trend will keep up
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from hotshizzle »
<hotshizle> WINE IN FRONT OF MEAL
<hotshizle> i think
I guess he did actually cast a vote at some point, which I completely missed, so my b on that one. It's actually his one direct post, even if it seems completely off-base. All his other posts just read like fabricated fluff.
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.
@Yodavader: Please explain the difference between A)stating that you agree with a wagon for reason already stated and B)getting on a wagon, stating reasons that have already been stated. If anything, the latter is scummier, because you're just trying to look you're providing content when you're actually not.
Actually I'd rather you restate them. You're saying that my actions toward Chris (and my defense) were scummy. Please explain how they were scummy. The reasons I've seen so far have been poor (Niv's argument about my post padding and Yodavader's misrep of what I did with the argument I found after PM commented about the player list checking being a scumtell)
Chris: "this changes things" doesn't change anything about how you reacted - it changes my opinion of PM's vote.
Seppel: Wait, so you were looking for a specific post amongst 126 of them to prove a point? If you're right that my play is so off wouldn't any old post do?
Besides I still don't agree with the meta argument. My posts here do not strike me as any different than my posts there.
The last game I was in (Tales of the Fantastic - I was town) someone made a meta argument against me as well - I didn't see it there, I don't see it here.
First off, thank you seppel, your doing that prevented me from having to go back and dredgeing through Alicia Blake mafia.
However, my point was just that his play was off, not scummy. I reiterate, it could just be rust, like I had when I returned from my long absence from mafia.
Why do you keep bringing up how players are playing differently if it isn't for any reason? What you are currently doing is providing mostly useless content at best.
I agree. In that previous game, Skander seemed to be really pro-active. but now, i notice the difference.
So you agree with Cyan's vote, and agree with the wagon, and agree that skander is reading pretty strongly scum to you, yet you don't vote for him? Why?
Well, I still feel that Skander is the scummiest person at the moment. And I don't care how he acted in the other games. I haven't played too many games here and when I did play, it was a while ago. So, at least for now, playstyles mean mostly nothing to me.
Another person who has popped up on my scumdar is Cyan. The bandwagoning on Chris and then jumping onto Skander (without much of a reason, save for saying that Seppel had a good post against him) and then the other posts saying that he agrees with the Skander wagon, yet doesn't post any arguments of his own.
And on a side note: Damn it Niv, always beating me to the post.
On a different side note: I have tomorrow off of work and I usually don't post on weekends so after today, I probably won't post again until Monday.
Actually I think that upon reading Tales of the Fantastic and Inheritance, you will see Cyan bandwagon jump a lot. As such, I'm not sure we can consider it a point for or against him.
I'm gonna put that on rust on Alx's part, being that he did retire a while back, and is just now pulling a Favre.
So whenever certain players slip up and act scummy, we can just chalk it up to rust? Sounds like a good way to clear players who know better on a faulty premise.
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!
The second part of this post("Worse...") is maybe not quite serious. But the first part definitely is and putting a third vote on someone during random is one of the actions where I always get serious.
Why was the first part definitely serious? Doesn't the "shame on you" sound playful? You agree that the second part may not be so serious, yet that is the part that you responded to seriously.
You say that you always get serious by 3 votes (I disagree with doing this btw) but doesn't that mean that you question the need for 3 votes in the random stage? Every time I've seen the 3 votes argument it's been "Why did you put 3 votes on Player X during random?". But you took PM seriously. In other words, you may get serious by 3 votes but why did you assume that PM was also serious?
I realize that my argument against you is that I would not have reacted the same way that you did and this can be chalked up to different playstyles but I just don't see the reasoning for what you did here.
It seems to me that you were willing to take the name scouring as a valid reason for a vote. Along with the reaction to the reaction, that was good enough for me to vote.
PM: So you were serious, interesting. Now that you ask about looking over the player list I suppose I can sort of see a reason why it might be scummy but it's not really that great of a reason...
does it seem like I supported it as a reason for a vote?
Also what are you referring to "reaction to the reaction"
Okay, Chris is bugging me because his use of emoticons and words (also some bit of seemingly defeatism in there) seem to try and garner some sort of sympathy and to appeal to emotion, but the way he also uses small jabs and some wordings make him seem arrogant and pretentious, like he thinks he can't be caught. I'll keep my vote on him right now. This weekend will be good for me to review a bit closer as I have free time.
Not to mention you can't call me bandwagonning when I didn't even think the first two votes were serious.
Okay, Chris is bugging me because his use of emoticons and words (also some bit of seemingly defeatism in there) seem to try and garner some sort of sympathy and to appeal to emotion, but the way he also uses small jabs and some wordings make him seem arrogant and pretentious, like he thinks he can't be caught. I'll keep my vote on him right now. This weekend will be good for me to review a bit closer as I have free time.
Not to mention you can't call me bandwagonning when I didn't even think the first two votes were serious.
Why would you be worried about this if you think the wagon has merit? If Chris is scummy enough to keep your vote on, that's it. Why worry about your image? unvote; vote MMoD.
KeeperofZion has played before, right? the name looks familiar and yet the not reading the thread at all seems to point to not knowing what he is doing. And yet when told to find it himself he gets most of it, yet still asks questions he can find the answers too regarding how old the game with the skander posts is. It looks like he is trying to play dumb even though he could figure it all out. Why he would do such a thing, I dont know, but something does not seem right.
Day one and somebody is already suspended. I wonder if the trend will keep up
Awsome posting CPE, not sure how this helps though. it adds nothing valuable to the dicussion, other than being 4 sentances, to make it look like your trying.
@Yodavader: Please explain the difference between A)stating that you agree with a wagon for reason already stated and B)getting on a wagon, stating reasons that have already been stated. If anything, the latter is scummier, because you're just trying to look you're providing content when you're actually not.
this may just be argueing theroy semantics, but, even restating old content means atleast we get a new perspective. new ideas. also, it's a way of letting us know your truly paying attention. also, Cyan, your not usually one to use other peoples thoughts. there has to be something here, that someone has an oponion on, that you can say.
Okay, Chris is bugging me because his use of emoticons and words (also some bit of seemingly defeatism in there) seem to try and garner some sort of sympathy and to appeal to emotion, but the way he also uses small jabs and some wordings make him seem arrogant and pretentious, like he thinks he can't be caught. I'll keep my vote on him right now. This weekend will be good for me to review a bit closer as I have free time.
Not to mention you can't call me bandwagonning when I didn't even think the first two votes were serious.
What, no. no no. no. Feels like craplogic to me. this post is just Awful.
@alx2- I am apparently not a normal player. I deal with one issue at a time. I made my thoughts on the Chris wagon known and that's it. I also seem to remember offering alternatives (in a roundabout way). I said I'd be looking at the voters of Chris's and my wagon. Sadly, work is busy right now and I don't have time just this moment to do so, but I will.
as far as the skander wagon goes, I'm looking forward to seeing a thought out case against him with actual posts to prove points. I've never played with him before so I don't have a baseline to compare against, and I'm inherently wary of Seppel style analysis "He's scummy because he's posting differently than the last time I played with him, but I can't be bothered to post any proof."
First off, it's not an attack, it's just a statement. When I was away from the game, I experienced some rust upon returning. I think that it's the same thing here. I'll provide examples later today when I have more time.
Many thanks to Sgt. Chubbz of Damnation studios.
Nervous reaction, unvote yourself. Downplay the vote on you with a combination of "R U srs", a smiley, and assuming PM's reasoning.
"Here goes another one" is a subtle jab at the voter. I'd hardly call a couple votes on you a "fad", you seem extremely concerned that you've entered the spotlight.
The last line kpaca has already brought to your attention, but it definitely reads like "will you look at this and determine it's how I react as a townie and move on, please?".
The overall impression I get from your posts is that you just want this pressure gone; not that you really want to resolve it.
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
More question marks = better question?
What do you make of the fact that Skander is voting ChrisXIV?
We're 160 posts in. Why do alternatives need to be offered so soon?
*************************
I stand by my last post.
Vote: creampuffeater
Salvation Mafia Clan
Mafia Stats
last updated 03/23/11
I found the exact post I wanted to find from Star Trek.
Compare the above wishy-washiness to the below cut and dry:
Skander usually tells it as it is. This time not so much.
I liked that line.
Ooh! Ooh! Can I answer for him? Pretty please?
Best of luck getting me lynched.
Reasons are good. Let's take a look...
This is a reasonable accusation. What would I gain from either of those conversations, though? Be specific.
Why is calling out fishing a problem? Terrible point. You have to assume Bil's and my alignment for this to be a point against me.
To sum up: You brought two points against me, one of which is bad and the other of which hasn't been thought through. Bad attack is bad.
How so?
(Let me remind you that one of the votes was his own, one of them was random, and one of them was mine.)
I think we're deep enough in this I'd like to hear your thoughts on the folks on your wagon. Be as specific as you can. Feel free to include those who have moved on, as well.
Sometimes, small behaviors can be scummy behaviors.
there is a diffrence between overexplaning and fluf posting. you were explaning what you were just asked if you did, after you did it. the "yes" woulda been enough, but that post reads as though you were simply just adding words to make it look like your post had content.
Weird, Cyan is outright bandwgoning. weird.
don't you normally add more content to your posts. not, well, scander is more scummy than Chris.
and in other news, I still don't see how people are calling chris scummy.
Millionaires, I hear it's good Music (Disclaimer: lyrics not PG-13) Thanks, CC
B)Skander's actions towards Chris(and his defense of said actions) are scummier than Chris' actions themselves. The reasons why this is the case have already been stated, I don't need to restate them.
Do you care to make judgements as to the alignment of any of the players, or are you just making a summary of the game for us to read
Salvation Mafia Clan
Mafia Stats
last updated 03/23/11
Actually I'd rather you restate them. You're saying that my actions toward Chris (and my defense) were scummy. Please explain how they were scummy. The reasons I've seen so far have been poor (Niv's argument about my post padding and Yodavader's misrep of what I did with the argument I found after PM commented about the player list checking being a scumtell)
Chris: "this changes things" doesn't change anything about how you reacted - it changes my opinion of PM's vote.
Seppel: Wait, so you were looking for a specific post amongst 126 of them to prove a point? If you're right that my play is so off wouldn't any old post do?
Besides I still don't agree with the meta argument. My posts here do not strike me as any different than my posts there.
The last game I was in (Tales of the Fantastic - I was town) someone made a meta argument against me as well - I didn't see it there, I don't see it here.
Pretty much the middle.
Noted.
However, my point was just that his play was off, not scummy. I reiterate, it could just be rust, like I had when I returned from my long absence from mafia.
Many thanks to Sgt. Chubbz of Damnation studios.
I'm also not seeing the Chris wagon. I don't see him as scummy enough to warrant the attention he's been getting, and I've been satisfied with his defense.
On the other hand, I've not been liking Alx. I was a bit wary of his last post, and his most recent one is even worse.
I don't see how this can possibly be good analysis--rather than looking at the two current wagons and trying to find out if they are scummy or not, he's taking them and looking for reasons he can make them out to be scummy--not to mention he's sitting on the fence by laying suspicion on both of the town's suspects.
13 to lynch
Skander - 5 draygn_mage, Zeppel, Niv, yodavader, Cyan
ZDS - 1 keyofdestiny
Alx2 - 1 jerubbaal
Bilbroxian - 1 keeperofzion
ChrisXIV - 5 Disrupt your Hymn, Pale Mage, mmod, kpaca, Skander
Shadow Knight - 2 cpe, Alx2
Pale Mage - 2 zindabad, Infinis
Cyan - 1 WoD
cpe - 1 andelijah
Not Voting: Nom_Anor, Bilbroxian, ZDS, ChrisXIV, MTG Junkie
MTG_Junkie has been suspended. Replacements are being contacted.
<XylBot> ||| MAFIABOT || sk: LookingforReality (Copycat) |||
<XylBot> ||| MAFIABOT || survivor: matjoeman (Anarchist) |||
<XylBot> ||| MAFIABOT || town: kops (Anarchist) |||
Mafia stats
Amazing. Is there enough room in the thread for that ego?
On a serious note, I don't care how rational your argument or if Chris is caught scum to boot. You could be bussing him , you could be playing the "helpful analytical" scum that I've seen in every game here, the point is that no one is an impossible lynch Day 1.
You tried to unilaterally start a softclaim. The argument "what would it gain [you]" is just deflecting the point. If you wanted a soft claim, why not come out and say it directly. Backdooring it, is scummy.
As to Chris and his three votes issue, the idea that he's used to small size games and panicked at three votes (even with one being his own and one being random) is just as valid as caught scum trying to stop the wagon. All other things being equal, he says he's foreign so I took his expalantions at face value.
Since my post several good analyses have popped up. Very swaying argument from DYH.
The Skander wagon is very-meta ladden. Yes Skander is often firmer in his opinions but I find that to be more so as the game progresses. (as has been pointed out by others before me)
If pressed to chose between the two wagons, as of right now, I'd say Chris wagon is stronger.
12-11? I'm losing track
First comment: The last line is Chris answering a specific question that was asked of him. You are definitely reading too much into it.
Second comment: What would it look like if he was trying to resolve it?
If he got a "stupid wagon" read so soon and so easily, it's not unrealistic to expect of him to get a firm read on at least one other player.
And here's kpaca doing the same thing DYH did above. Chris was asked a straight question, responded to it, and now his straight answer is being presented as scummy. Why?
First, neither Skander nor SK are the top suspect (or at least have been at the time, I see Skander is now tied with Chris).
Second, I did look at the top wagon. And I did "try to find out if he's scummy". Which is in a part of my post not shown here because you left it out of your quote.
You can obtain that read without even seeing the player in question post if the basis of the wagon is bad.
Salvation Mafia Clan
Mafia Stats
last updated 03/23/11
If there's a legitimate argument against Skander, it's really that he's appearance focused instead of identity focused. I haven't actually played with Skander, but I'm curious if that's outside the norm.
I fail to see anything abnormal in the Chris/Skander relationship, except for perhaps an abundance of flakiness. Seems like there's a lot of that in this game....
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.
Arrogance is part of my charm.
You...don't? This should be interesting...
So in that scenario I decided to roar into the random stage and bus a scumbuddy, not only inviting undo attention upon him, but possibly myself, and profit how, exactly? This doesn't pass the sniff test.
If I am, I seem to be playing it rather poorly. Most folks don't like the initial attack at all. Chris garnered votes based on his reaction, not my attack. In this scenario I imagine Chris is not scum, correct?
True enough, but you won't be lynching me.
I didn't, actually. I claimed myself because I wanted the information out there in case it matters. I was surprised that I wasn't a Led Zep tune, and that got my wheels turning. If it does matter, then I've done a good thing. If it doesn't matter, then no harm no foul.
Uh, no. It's logic. Revealing role information of any kind without expectation or invitation isn't something done without purpose. It immediately attracts attention to oneself. Attracting attention to oneself is not something scum do without purpose. Where's the benefit?
Because I didn't want one. Still don't. If it matters to anybody that I'm not a Led Zep tune they have that information. That's it.
As I recall, Chris said he doesn't care about the size of the game. It's just a hard and fast rule in his head.
I don't understand what his nationality has to do with anything, outside of the eyebrow smiley which he has explained as cultural.
Oh, ok. Unvote (also since RVS is over)
Things that I have noticed;
there is a Chris wagon that started from the fact that he voted himself twice over misspelling of his name.
and there is a Skander wagon as well. could anyone explain exactly how this one started?
FoS: Keeperofzion for being lazy. Seriously, the thread isn't that big, read and figure out why the wagon started on Skander. Do you know why there's still a wagon on Chris? Who do you think is scum?
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
Tbh, i don't quite see the scuminess of voting for yourself twice in RVS because your name was spelled wrong. For now, it just makes a 'weird' impression on me rather than a 'scummy' one.
Okay, since you insist, i'll read more thoroughly.
So the wagon starts when Seppel votes Skander for posting differently compared to a previous game.
I see the justification in this.
This response is peculiar. Don't you see that the fact that it is a waste of time already shows its scuminess?
I agree. In that previous game, Skander seemed to be really pro-active. but now, i notice the difference.
@Seppel: How long ago was it since that last game, and what alignment did Skander turn out to be?
So generally, right now, i have no strong certainties yet, although Skander seems to be leaning more in the Scum-side than Chris.
Really cyan, don't you normaly add your own content? and your also more deciscive. also, if you don;t restate the reasons AT LEAST, in your own words, it feels alot like blatent bandwagoning. it also helps beacuse it adds a new version of the case, adding new oponions, new logic, and new analysis. but you know this, and it feels like your just being incredibly lazy.
This post feals like nothing but hypocracry. feels like your just as flaky if not more than what your discribing in the "Chris/Skander relationship"
Hmm, could you read the thread yourself. it's not hard to miss, this question makes me feel like your nor reading every post, which "can" be a bad thing.
Millionaires, I hear it's good Music (Disclaimer: lyrics not PG-13) Thanks, CC
Millionaires, I hear it's good Music (Disclaimer: lyrics not PG-13) Thanks, CC
Another person who has popped up on my scumdar is Cyan. The bandwagoning on Chris and then jumping onto Skander (without much of a reason, save for saying that Seppel had a good post against him) and then the other posts saying that he agrees with the Skander wagon, yet doesn't post any arguments of his own.
And on a side note: Damn it Niv, always beating me to the post.
On a different side note: I have tomorrow off of work and I usually don't post on weekends so after today, I probably won't post again until Monday.
I'm gonna put that on rust on Alx's part, being that he did retire a while back, and is just now pulling a Favre.
Many thanks to Sgt. Chubbz of Damnation studios.
...and yet you haven't. You've pretty much kept your cool.
Also, you're boring me now.
Unvote.
Chris: Not really. The point is that the reaction to that post shouldn't have assumed it was serious. The fact that it ultimately was serious doesn't change what the initial reaction should have been.
KoZ: Because I wasted your time, I'm scummy?
It seems to me that you were willing to take the name scouring as a valid reason for a vote. Along with the reaction to the reaction, that was good enough for me to vote.
Here's why I think Cyan is scummy. He was quick to jump on the Chris wagon. Then when it was pointed out that you were another wagon, he jumped on that. When he was asked to provide his own reasons, he said that he didn't need to restate them. I think that it's bussing. Seems to me that he is willing to jump on whatever wagon is going, doesn't matter who the wagon is on. Like I said before, there needs to be reasons for a vote. "I agree...blah, blah, blah...vote" is not a valid reason in my book.
We've gone through this before. I've heard your reasoning already. I am going to look back when I get the chance and see if it makes sense to me that you would assume it was serious.
Sorry for my low level of activity, I always take a while to get warmed up in games this size, especially with 5-6 people I haven't played with before. That, and I've been trying to force through the signups for my basic, which was unusually draining.
"...a talisman against all evil, so long as you obey me."
Salvation Mafia Clan
Mafia Stats
last updated 03/23/11
Lol, so saying there's no relationship is flaky? Ok....
Spelling ftw. I think that's officially the most awesome spelling of hypocrisy that I've ever seen. Sounds like a drug.
So when he's town, he fails to have opinions? Lame.
I don't like Cyan's play right now, but I never like Cyan's play. I've played with him a handful of times, and I've never really trusted my read on him.
DYH, however, seems dumber than DYH usually is.
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.
Salvation Mafia Clan
Mafia Stats
last updated 03/23/11
Day one and somebody is already suspended. I wonder if the trend will keep up
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.
BTW, I like how Yodavader pushed Skander into asking about / subtly defending Cyan.
OH AND BEORE I FORGET, POTENTIAL V/LA FOR THE NEXT 99 HOURS
Thank you. I am satisfied with your recent responses btw. unvote.
This to me is a very townie post.
Why do you keep bringing up how players are playing differently if it isn't for any reason? What you are currently doing is providing mostly useless content at best.
So you agree with Cyan's vote, and agree with the wagon, and agree that skander is reading pretty strongly scum to you, yet you don't vote for him? Why?
Actually I think that upon reading Tales of the Fantastic and Inheritance, you will see Cyan bandwagon jump a lot. As such, I'm not sure we can consider it a point for or against him.
So whenever certain players slip up and act scummy, we can just chalk it up to rust? Sounds like a good way to clear players who know better on a faulty premise.
Why was the first part definitely serious? Doesn't the "shame on you" sound playful? You agree that the second part may not be so serious, yet that is the part that you responded to seriously.
You say that you always get serious by 3 votes (I disagree with doing this btw) but doesn't that mean that you question the need for 3 votes in the random stage? Every time I've seen the 3 votes argument it's been "Why did you put 3 votes on Player X during random?". But you took PM seriously. In other words, you may get serious by 3 votes but why did you assume that PM was also serious?
I realize that my argument against you is that I would not have reacted the same way that you did and this can be chalked up to different playstyles but I just don't see the reasoning for what you did here.
When I say:
does it seem like I supported it as a reason for a vote?
Also what are you referring to "reaction to the reaction"
Seppel and Cyan: Why are you ignoring me?
Not to mention you can't call me bandwagonning when I didn't even think the first two votes were serious.
Why would you be worried about this if you think the wagon has merit? If Chris is scummy enough to keep your vote on, that's it. Why worry about your image? unvote; vote MMoD.
"...a talisman against all evil, so long as you obey me."
while I don't like your wagon, i don't like this post. it's not that it's scummy. its that it just feels like you don;t care.
Depending on ballence, there are 4 - 6 scum in this game aprox. seriously now, someone can't find 2 people scummy. this is just awful. no no no no no.
the post felt non-commital. non-commital = flaky. also, have we not been over niv's spelling in the past enough?
Awsome posting CPE, not sure how this helps though. it adds nothing valuable to the dicussion, other than being 4 sentances, to make it look like your trying.
this may just be argueing theroy semantics, but, even restating old content means atleast we get a new perspective. new ideas. also, it's a way of letting us know your truly paying attention. also, Cyan, your not usually one to use other peoples thoughts. there has to be something here, that someone has an oponion on, that you can say.
What, no. no no. no. Feels like craplogic to me. this post is just Awful.
Millionaires, I hear it's good Music (Disclaimer: lyrics not PG-13) Thanks, CC