You find meta arguments to be silly but then vote Guardman because you don't think Manders would put a PR role in her game…?
For a start, I said "Usually", which you've conveniently overlooked for the purpose of smearing my argument, and this is also not your average meta argument. This is me WIFOMing the Mod, and I'll be damned if after the fuss she put up over her PR in Flame Warriors, that she actually put a PR like this into this game. The levels of hypocrisy would be over 9000.
Kahedron - MISSING but it's only been two days I guess.
Not merely missing.. Lost. Its being to feel like I look away for 5 mins and another 100 odd posts arrive. Doesn't help that Blue + Blue Electric are the most frequent posters.
Their argument about the actions of WoD went circular very quickly with each of them refuting/ignoring each others points. I am not happy to lable either scum but equally willing to bet that if one is the other isn't.
Looking back on it, it appears that getting information out of either of them is harder than pulling teeth. Would be nice if the pair of them were more forthcomming immeadiatly instead of slow rolling. Agree with you that Blue is worse for this. Most of his posts are very dense, almost Melville like (listening to Moby Dick atm).
Archamage Eternal also seems to be as secretive as BE was earlier. Reminding me a lot of how Seppel has been recently large number of posts with a low word count.
AE any chance you could drop one and increase the other
Blue Thanks for that timeline/ analysis but any chance you could break the next one up a bit more so it does not look quite so intimindating.
Not sure what you and WoD are seeing in Guardman. Is it just that he appears to be claiming Spot. And are you basing this soft claim off that single LolCat image?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
Yup, it's the best example of it. It was still quite relevant. He was forced to claim, and support enough for a claim is almost always
That's laughable. blue was spanked by multiple people for appearing afraid to die, so coming out much later saying "I'm not afraid to die, see?" is an extremely tainted example at best.
#16 – Emo – The only reason I can see you posting this is for baiting or breadcrumbing. I can see reasons why town would do the former and scum would do the latter. You didn’t respond to me when I asked you about it. I am ambivalent about this post.
#21 – Emo – What I thought you were doing here was deflecting away from WOD at first. Then I thought maybe he means “Why are you not chastising atlseal for something he did that was scummy?” But I can’t see any reason why you would chastise ATL when Atls vote was real as well and has done nothing that BE was counting strikes for.
#24 – Emo – I find this post vague and more of an “Oh I don’t really know what I was saying” so I’m even more confused. That’s why I ask for clarification on 26 and 27
#29 – Emo – I’ve already stated why I don’t like your reasoning regarding my unvote and calling it looking hard for a reason to vote. I also believe you should have attributed this to BE and I believe this question is asked later. I don’t like this post.
#33 – Emo – I do agree with you here that Atl should butt out but I wanted an answer too. I don’t understand why you asked your question. I think it was as empty as mine has been accused of being. And I continue to disbelieve your reason for voting me.
#35 – Emo – I don’t get this and I don’t see the need to point it out.
#39 – Emo – I like this first part and I don’t and let me know if I’m getting this right: you’re essentially calling out BE for being a hypocrite with your initial question about atlseal? But then you tell her immediately after that the thing she’s concerned about she’s going to have to get used to.
#53 – Emo – I understand your reasons for WHY you “curtail” the discussion but you had to know the discussion would happen anyway. You still shouldn’t have answered for BE. If you think it’s being misapplied then you should have said that instead. I do agree that BE is being obtuse (I know a thing or two about that)
I agree with your interpretation of BE’s response to you and support this 100%.
Still disagree with you about the theatrics. Why no mention of Kahedron’s blatant question regarding the end of RVS?
#63- Emo – What do you mean flirting two directions? In my next post I asked questions how is that not pressing for answers? O_o
I agree that BE’s being pretentious and illogical. We both agree she’s being obtuse. But you say you don’t see a reason why scum would invent reasons and use logic to try to get someone lynched. O_o. Using weak scumtells that are {referenced in wiki/old} to start a wagon can’t be scummy? Are you saying that you can’t see scum starting a wagon using generic scumtells in the hopes of appearing to be scumhunting? You used this logic to cast your vote on me (by saying I’m using generic I got my scumhunter hat on tactics) but why aren’t you as suspicious about BE?
My initial response to your question “the scum decide it’s time to reveal themselves and take you out D1?” is “I dunno. Did you?”
You calling it nervous laughter doesn’t make it nervous laughter. I explain later why I ask for the vote count but since you’re not actually talking to me it looks like you’re talking “to the town.” I don’t like that.
16 - I'm revealing non-essential information about my role, and my disappointment that I cannot use any quotes from my character for funsies.
21 - I've clarified this many times, I'm pointing out BE's logic is wrong since he ignored atlseal.
24 - I clearly know what I'm saying, but I had no interest in sharing.
29 - Too bad. Next time think how you want to approach your questioning better instead of just throwing accusations. Also, unvoting is stupid in general unless it's actually going to do harm voting for someone. Hell, just look at how much fluff is in your PBPA. You lack a level of structure needed to express your points, and are playing a analytical player while posting in a reactive fashion like an instinctive one.
33 - Explained a couple times now.
35 - Good, because there was no need I was teasing my buddy SYRENZ.
39 - Yep, glad to see you needed to ask four time int he PBPA before getting here. Also, if you've noticed WoD doesn't pay attention to much if anything at all - so BE saying WoD is scummy for not paying attention is just silly because it is WoD (on top of it being so early int he game).
53 - It could only lead to a conversation that would hurt the town if left unchecked, so I said something. Also, Kahedron's post was complaining about leaving RVS, your post was taking action to show you were getting down to business. It felt like posturing to make yourself look good, which is something a scum wants to do - townies have no need to care about appearances like when you decided your not claiming. Can you understand wher eI made a distinction better?
63 - Your posts had pretty meaningless statements while using negetively charged language. It doesn't mean anything to say "deflecting much" but the use of the term "deflecting" gives it weight by using a word that mafia players recognize as a bad thing. Same with the statement about strikes. The number of strikes is completely devoid of meaning, since we all understand more strikes = bad. These questions are imply both people are scummy for what they are doing, but with no real meaning the questions are never going to get a concrete answer. It means it's easy for a crafty scum to place a vote on the worse answer and continue to press the issue. It's a very common tactic, therefore it's a scum tell.
Your confusing being wrong with being manipulative. BE's case on WoD was wrong, but the clarity of bad logic makes it read as genuine scum hunting. Your questions read as being manipulative because they appear to have meaning (because they sound like attacks) but don't (because they lack content).
Maybe you guys all know Manders better than I do, but putting a semi-crippling PR (not crippling) in a game sounds like something she might do. I'm certainly not interested in lynching Guardman on the possibility that he's faking a PR.
Bah, voting for him isn't any good right now, I can accept that. But I most certainly will be watching him, and let it be known that I am still super keen to prove that he's faking his PR.
LC [URL="http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=7847233&postcount=32"]#32[/URL]: I remember initially thinking this post doesn't make sense, and it still doesn't. I called blue's "How many strikes are you implying he gets" question empty, and LC's response is that blue's question "sounds confusingly written"? I don't see how such a question could be confusingly written - it's incredibly straightforward - and given the simplicity of the exchange I'm having trouble believing that this is anything other than an excuse to fence-sit and play mediator which is what scum love to do in the early game.
LC [URL="http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=7850115&postcount=77"]#77[/URL]: I feel like "paranoid as hell" is usually something that accompanies a vote. Especially given that he's concerned that Zaj unvoted blue. I feel like this whole posts shows an unwillingness to get involved in the meat of the actual discussions nor to lay down a real opinion backed up by a vote.
LC [URL="http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=7850789&postcount=84"]#84[/URL]: Again, I find the entire post too cautious and ambiguous. I was actually getting ready to call this a town post when I read the last part about "too earnest to be scum" - but then he turns it into a way to back up others' attempts to draw out some meta information, rather than out-and-out going with the read and declaring BE town, which is what I would do if I were town. I don't think this is necessarily a bad post, I think there are signs of scumhunting here, but I think it once again shows an unwillingness to stick his head on the line or commit to any kind of solid opinion. The fact that I actually had to ask whether LC thinks BE is town at this point shows how ambiguous this all is.
[URL="http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=7854312&postcount=117"]LC #117[/URL]: This is a pretty scummy post. LC could have voted earlier on charges of paranoia, but chose not to - OK, fine, that's not the strongest of tells as stuff happened in the interim. Rather than the timing, the justification is the real issue: a straight barn of EP (whose points mostly suck and I agree with atlseal that he's reading scum into places where there isn't any), couple with a nonsense piece of analysis on the selected blue quote. I don't see anything "shifty" or weird about the "tone" in that quote and I'm pretty convinced that LC just decided he was going to vote blue and needed to cobble together some kind of original reasoning.
LC [URL="http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=7854739&postcount=131"]#131[/URL]: So now it has been pointed out that the entire "strikes" metaphor was not actually blue's, but BE's. This entire post is an incredibly confusing justification for LC to keep his vote on blue which doesn't mesh at all well with its apologetic tone. More arguing semantics while attacking blue for doing the same. If LC were town, I would have expected him to say something to the effect of "point retracted, but I still agree with EP's X, Y and Z". Finally the "Yeesh, I should go back to bed" sounds nervous and defensive.
LC [URL="http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=7856551&postcount=137"]#137[/URL]: I find this to be bending to atlseal far too easily. You don't go from wanting someone to claim and barning all of EP's points (as well as semantically arguing your own) to reconsidering everything.
LC [URL="http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=7863103&postcount=160"]#160[/URL]: Again, I get the overcautious feeling coming from this post, but it's mainly a problem given the subsequent one:
LC [URL="http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=7863897&postcount=168"]#168[/URL: I already commented on this post earlier in my [URL="http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=7868039&postcount=183"]#183[/URL], but it also directly contradicts #160. There's just absolutely no purpose in all this rather than pure fence-sitting - saying that scum have faked post restrictions, only to turn around and say town have faked post restrictions too. Perhaps most egregious is "but we don't know if Guardman is faking it, and as long as he doesn't give us straight answers using EP's questions, we can't learn more": why would LC not try and get Guardman to give straight answers! He's obviously interested in resolving the issue, but he's much more willing to commentate than give real answers.
I guess I could see LC being really cautious town, which negates some of my points, but I find this difficult to believe given that we know he's a player who by nature calls people "idiots". I'm quite happy with my vote where it is and I hope the rest of you will give it some good consideration.
@TIM: I think he's "cautious town" more than scum.
Unvote if I was voting anybody.
I need to reread blue and BlueElectric, but I think there's at least one scum between them. As for Guardman, I haven't decided what to do about him yet.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
EDH:
:symb::symb: Marrow-Gnawer :symb::symb: - :symw::symu: Grand Arbiter Augustin IV :symw::symu: - :symb::symb: Toshiro Umezawa :symb::symb: - :symg::symg: Sachi, Daughter of Seshiro :symg::symg:
@TIM: I think he's "cautious town" more than scum.
Unvote if I was voting anybody.
I need to reread blue and BlueElectric, but I think there's at least one scum between them. As for Guardman, I haven't decided what to do about him yet.
Let me elaborate on that last post a little more. Cautious town are usually very inexperienced and are often incredibly easy to read as town because they're genuinely open about their uncertainties. For instance, look at someone like Fenris or DJ in WoW mafia (the last game we played in together). LC, on the other hand, does not appear to be nearly inexperienced enough to have that level of caution and does not show any of the tell-tale signs of townie caution.
LC #32: I remember initially thinking this post doesn't make sense, and it still doesn't. I called blue's "How many strikes are you implying he gets" question empty, and LC's response is that blue's question "sounds confusingly written"? I don't see how such a question could be confusingly written - it's incredibly straightforward - and given the simplicity of the exchange I'm having trouble believing that this is anything other than an excuse to fence-sit and play mediator which is what scum love to do in the early game.
Clearly it wasn't straightforward to me, since I misunderstood it both here and at the tail end of the discussion, and frankly, the entire thing still seems a bit impenetrable to me. In addition, if this post was meant to be an offensive move on this particular discussion, rather than just a request for clarification, wouldn't I have followed up on this, say, by joining your vote?
LC #77: I feel like "paranoid as hell" is usually something that accompanies a vote. Especially given that he's concerned that Zaj unvoted blue. I feel like this whole posts shows an unwillingness to get involved in the meat of the actual discussions nor to lay down a real opinion backed up by a vote.
This sounds like a disagreement about personal preferences to me. Without going into detail about my other game on this site still in progress, there are some single posts which I find worthy of votes by themselves, and some that are deserving of follow-up but not a vote. Paranoia is the kind of thing that can go either way - it's one of those factors that necessitates treating newer players as a separate category, for example - so I didn't immediately spring on it, but apparently you feel differently about that.
I'll admit, however, that I've been hanging observations out on the line too much this game (there's this one, and the scum-faking-PRs comment) without context or analysis. I'll work on rectifying that.
LC #84: Again, I find the entire post too cautious and ambiguous. I was actually getting ready to call this a town post when I read the last part about "too earnest to be scum" - but then he turns it into a way to back up others' attempts to draw out some meta information, rather than out-and-out going with the read and declaring BE town, which is what I would do if I were town. I don't think this is necessarily a bad post, I think there are signs of scumhunting here, but I think it once again shows an unwillingness to stick his head on the line or commit to any kind of solid opinion. The fact that I actually had to ask whether LC thinks BE is town at this point shows how ambiguous this all is.
So your problem here is what, ambiguous language? Let's not forget you asked me what my opinion of him was immediately after, and I gave you a definite response. It wasn't meant to be ambiguous. You make it sound like this post is wholly divorced from that subsequent clarification.
The bolded comment is important, since a lot of your criticisms read to me as relying on a difference of opinion. (Or that's a Freudian slip. ;))
LC #117: This is a pretty scummy post. LC could have voted earlier on charges of paranoia, but chose not to - OK, fine, that's not the strongest of tells as stuff happened in the interim. Rather than the timing, the justification is the real issue: a straight barn of EP (whose points mostly suck and I agree with atlseal that he's reading scum into places where there isn't any), couple with a nonsense piece of analysis on the selected blue quote. I don't see anything "shifty" or weird about the "tone" in that quote and I'm pretty convinced that LC just decided he was going to vote blue and needed to cobble together some kind of original reasoning.
As established, I entirely misjudged that conversation, which accounts for everything below barning EP, which I'll admit I did. Ironically, barning EP led to me misjudging the conversation, because I entered from the midpoint and thus further misunderstood the whole "strikes" debacle, which led to me misinterpreting that quote there.
Being an idiot isn't a scum tell, however, and that post reads like someone who just doesn't know what the hell he's talking about, but thinks he does (note, for example, the gross misattribution of the original strikes metaphor). If anything, this post represents my efforts at positive contribution - it's just that I got it all wrong.
If I was indeed being an overly-cautious scum, by contrast, it would be easier to just barn EP, or barn EP and make a simpler point of "positive matter".
LC #131: So now it has been pointed out that the entire "strikes" metaphor was not actually blue's, but BE's. This entire post is an incredibly confusing justification for LC to keep his vote on blue which doesn't mesh at all well with its apologetic tone. More arguing semantics while attacking blue for doing the same. If LC were town, I would have expected him to say something to the effect of "point retracted, but I still agree with EP's X, Y and Z". Finally the "Yeesh, I should go back to bed" sounds nervous and defensive.
I stand behind the "two premises" argument - it still does read like an attempt to blur the line between "three strikes and you're out" and BE's true meaning to the effect of spreading doubt.
Furthermore, I would argue there's no tonal confusion like you attribute - there's nothing inconsistent about withdrawing a mistaken argument and substituting a more concrete one based on the same evidence, which is the gist of that post. Clearly I misinterpreted the post, but my reaction - that there was something funny about that particular quote - holds between the two posts.
As for the last bit, it's undoubtedly self-conscious, but (again acknowledging my other game is still in progress, so I can't go delving for evidence) I make comments like that as both town and scum. And it's not meant to excuse my behavior, it's another tacit admission I screwed up. So yes, that bit is "nervous and defensive", but the entire post is nervous and defensive (or, moreso, apologetic), and it's that way because I know I screwed up.
LC #137: I find this to be bending to atlseal far too easily. You don't go from wanting someone to claim and barning all of EP's points (as well as semantically arguing your own) to reconsidering everything.
You do if half your case was as bad as mine was, (a), and (b) if it's a reasonable point he makes. And let's be clear - I'm conceding his point, I'm not throwing everything I've said (besides the idiotic stuff, natch) out the window. It's a concession, not a full capitulation - important distinction.
LC #160: Again, I get the overcautious feeling coming from this post, but it's mainly a problem given the subsequent one:
LC #168: I already commented on this post earlier in my #183, but it also directly contradicts #160. There's just absolutely no purpose in all this rather than pure fence-sitting - saying that scum have faked post restrictions, only to turn around and say town have faked post restrictions too. Perhaps most egregious is "but we don't know if Guardman is faking it, and as long as he doesn't give us straight answers using EP's questions, we can't learn more": why would LC not try and get Guardman to give straight answers! He's obviously interested in resolving the issue, but he's much more willing to commentate than give real answers.
The contrast with 160 only exists if you attribute some subtext to that original comment, but I would argue it was made as a general observation with no subtext, and I say that because I hadn't actually read through WoD's "case" and thus had no idea what to make of it, but just thought it was a helpful thing to note that scum have faked PRs before. (The possibility of a scum-PR particularly struck me because I was in that game I mentioned.)
I didn't do my homework, I admit - but your point then seems to be that I was trying to push a wagon without having actually read the wagon or seen its merit. That not only seems like a terrible strategy, it seems entirely inconsistent with your claim that I've been cautious this game.
Finally, see also the "paranoid as hell" comment in 77. Likewise, 166 exists in relation to 160 in the same way 86 exists in relation to 84 (though that was more a case of unclear language than unclear subtext).
I guess I could see LC being really cautious town, which negates some of my points
More than some - almost every post on which you chose to comment was an example of "cautiousness". Hopefully the above will address the rest of the problems.
, but I find this difficult to believe given that we know he's a player who by nature calls people "idiots". I'm quite happy with my vote where it is and I hope the rest of you will give it some good consideration.
First, on the "idiots" bit - cautiousness and trolling aren't mutually exclusive. It's not like I knocked off the trolling this game, either - it crops up in 84, for example.
As for the general cautiousness, I'll acknowledge I've been more than a bit noncommittal. I argue that's a function of a couple of factors -
1) the structure of the game so far, which has largely circled around two rather-impenetrable arguments (Blue and BlueElectric, and the fake-PR bit), the former because it was built on a confusing metaphorical exchange between two unclear writers, and the latter because it was built almost entirely on WoD gaming the mod. This impenetrability has made it harder for me to get a real sense of what's going on, hence cautiousness - and
2) I've been pretty lazy this game. As much as I'd like to say is because I haven't been in two games at once in a long time, is really just me not trying hard enough.
I'll work to address both of these this weekend by rereading the thread and bringing back some more solid reads.
Let me elaborate on that last post a little more. Cautious town are usually very inexperienced and are often incredibly easy to read as town because they're genuinely open about their uncertainties. For instance, look at someone like Fenris or DJ in WoW mafia (the last game we played in together). LC, on the other hand, does not appear to be nearly inexperienced enough to have that level of caution and does not show any of the tell-tale signs of townie caution.
Let's also not forget there are deliberate reasons for townies to be cautious, such as trying to slow-roll a power role. Those don't apply to me in this case, but it's worth noting.
I've lost all the posts I quoted from Thursday and am too lazy to do that again. But basically, my problems with him:
His second post in the game regarding Blue's "confusingly written" post struck me as the type of thing scum would say to get some townie points. It also felt like he was dealing with inside information as the post could go either way - so assuming that Blue was just town having trouble expressing himself felt off.
His post where he concedes atlseal's point and lets go of the Blue wagon (which he had seemed to be in full support of a little earlier) also felt wrong. But he has now addressed this somewhat.
Lastly, as already mentioned I don't like his recent posts regarding Guardman. First he chimes in "Scum do this." which as I said, feels like he's just trying to add fuel to the wagon without voting. This is backed up by the fact that after I question him on this, he suddenly recalls that town can do this as well. All in all I don't like this part.
The rest of his posts are fairly null to me.
However, I'd like to see more of his posts and I am willing to hold on this wagon to see this:
I'll work to address both of these this weekend by rereading the thread and bringing back some more solid reads.
I agree with WoD that MH probably wouldn't give a PR that restrictive...
And I don't like that he says he can't create his own lolcat images. There are sooo many variations already out there that it feels... arbitrary.
Vote: Guardman
... to your latest post:
As for Guardman, I haven't decided what to do about him yet.
Whether he is or is not spot should have no relevance to your opinion of him for that is not what you voted him for. Your reasons for voting are outlined quite clearly above and nothing has happened to counter those reasons.
I don't like this and I don't like the fact that you voted Guardman in the first place.
Vote Zajnet
--------------------
Scum list:
Zajnet - Scummy for the reasons outlined above. LC - Scummy for the reasons outlined above. Blue Electric - Scummy for there being a complete lack of consistency between the things she posts and strange and confusing plays throughout the game. I am however torn between her being scummy or just a strange player. Blue - Getting overall town vibe from posts now. Not someone I am interested in pursuing at present. atlseal - I have not decided how I read atlseal at present. TheIceMan - Townish for scumhunting and displaying mindsets similar to my own beliefs. Kahedron - Not enough posts to go on. Emo Pinata - I have not decided how I read emo pinata at present. Wrath of Dog - Don't like that he decided Guardman was a good direction. Would like to see more of his posts though (especially now that he has apparently dropped Guardman). Guardman - I don't feel it's likely that he's faking the PR. At the same time, I feel it is more likely that MH would give a townie a PR over a scum. This is modgaming, but slight town. Archmage Eternal - Feels like Archmage Eternal. Don't have much of a read on him other than that at this point.
As far as I can see, nothing has changed from this post:
... to your latest post:
Whether he is or is not spot should have no relevance to your opinion of him for that is not what you voted him for. Your reasons for voting are outlined quite clearly above and nothing has happened to counter those reasons.
I don't like this and I don't like the fact that you voted Guardman in the first place.
Continuing my re-read. Yes it will be another wall of text.
One note: Regardless of Guardman having a PR or NOT he's playing like he has one. Clearly you can get answers out of him if you ask yes or no questions. It is the least convoluted way to "work around" it. I don't like this "let's vote him because we think he's faking a PR" logic. I don't know if there's a mafia term for it, but it's like saying "Inside that completely sealed room that you can't see into because it has no doors and no windows there's a delicious sandwich." You can't prove there's a sandwich in there you can't know it's delicious other than because you were told so. You can either believe it or not but you can't prove it. Saying I disbelieve you doesn't get you into the room with the sandwich. Since I have no mafia term for this I'll just call it a Sandwich theory.
If you want content out of him ask him yes or no questions.
Are there any pressing questions people need answered of me before I start posting walls of text? (It will take a while to get my next post up so I'll have time to answer between)
Whoever mentioned "I wish there was a vote in there" I can't tell if you wanted me to vote after my re-read or mention other people's votes. Either way since I'm not done with my re-read I'm not ready to vote again and I'm not convinced my vote isn't already in the right place.
Okay, so I have a few problems with this. Mainly it doesn't really fit with this:
Or this:
Additionally, I was under the impression - though I may have been mistaken - that you were unvoting WoD as a result of people saying that the third vote is not a reliable tell (which you are now implying you knew before). If this was not the reason for unvoting WoD, what was?
There appears to be a distinct lack of consistency between the things you are saying.
I mulled over the decisions I had made this game and changed my stances on a lot of them throughout being reasoned with, hence the inconsistencies.
Get back to me when you're finished with that wine in front of you. I don't care too much for a drink.
If you say so, Mister Seal.
Quote from atlseal »
Can't find and don't have the time to find the post right now, but I remember you saying something akin to that you were pretty sure you caught scum with it. That's not just 'starting the hunt'.
I concluded the hunt early. And then I dropped it temporarily.
Quote from atlseal »
In this game, but could you please be more specific as to what it was that started convincing you that you were wrong about DoG.
I am not convinced that I'm wrong about Mister DoG. However, I decided to drop it for the time being.
Quote from atlseal »
Implication?
I believe that if Mister Blue is mafia, that you are as well, Mister Seal.
Also, I'm going to go out on a limb and Unvote, Vote TheIceMan.
I haven't even gotten very far on this re-read and I'm increasingly confused.
#84 – LC – Bad players are more likely to get a pass? Are you saying “If you can provide evidence that you’re a bad player we can excuse your bad play?” Are you saying that up to this point BE is playing badly? Other than your attack on BE’s logic regarding RVS and 3rd votes, what indicates that BE is playing badly for you? After BE/ATL have confirmed that BE has extensive mafia history AND BE states in post #92 “I don’t see you finding a mafia’s motivation behind my actions.” Can you still justify your statement that BE “genuinely has no idea how to play as scum”?
#96 – BE - It’s evident especially in this post that you’re responding to answers to questions you haven’t asked. The reason town do this is because they’re too cocky or think they have more experience than the person they’re talking to so they feel more justified in their interpretation of things. The reason scum do this is to not give town an opportunity to answer for themselves. But, regardless of the motivation behind it, it’s scummy because you’re not giving someone an opportunity to answer the question and it seems like you don’t care if you get their answer at all. If you are town you should want every bit of information. As it is, you seem to have made up your mind about people and don’t actually want to give them a chance to prove you wrong. That’s very short sighted and unfair to anyone you actually deem scummy.
#97 – Kahedron – Mentions a full read a couple times so I’m eager to hear thoughts from it. You said that BE was being defensive/ secretive: How? Have you completed your full read? Why does it matter how long the RVS is to you?
#101 – TIM – You didn’t answer this question I asked Do you think scum or town is more likely to be concerned about dying? Why?
#102 – BE – If faking a pr can be towny or scummy do you see a point in voting someone who continues to post with a PR? I have already explained why I don’t believe you’re using a towny mindset when you assume “The most probably outcome of this exchange” Then you ask me for my game history when you’ve said that that isn’t relevant. Why is it not relevant for you but it’s relevant for me? You’re definitely sounding too cocky here with your patronizing “by all means give me more reason to vote you” It also doesn’t make sense to me that you’re at once concerned that putting your vote on me might bring me an accidental hammer AND you don’t even know what L-X I’m at. I get the feeling that “such as myself; are you at L-2? That’s the impression I’m under” is meant to seem “innocent” sounding. Also if a player happens to vote me into accidental hammer range and I accidentally get hammered don’t you think THAT Would provide useful information to the town? I also find it suspicious that you think I’m skittish and paranoid but I’m ignoring the pressure on me. You’ve contradicted yourself within this post even. Continuing to press you for information is NOT a deflection away from my case. Cases can co-exist ya know. In fact I’d argue that there’s a running case on everyone until they’ve basically proven themselves to be town. Even then I’d still be suspicious.
#103 – Emo – You should be getting an idea of my thought process by this point in the reread. What you see as an attack I claim is just asking questions. What you see as a valid reason to vote I see as a reason to ask more questions. We define and approach things differently. By you calling my questions “accusations and attacks” (re: the “empty question” post) It makes me feel like you’re more aggressive than I am. I am not saying this is indicative of any alignment.
I disagree that being aware of something == being scared of something happening. Please indicate in my response to Syrenz where I am lying and making up logic. And please show me where I’m making up logic in that response you quoted. I don’t think your statement here is justified.
#111 – BE – I have already chimed in on how we can get information from Guardman; I don’t believe this line of thinking regarding his PR is helpful. You didn’t unvote because attentions were elsewhere.
Originally Posted by blue
I don't like the way you phrase things at all. It feels manipulative and so I distrust you. And while I understand what you're saying it also sounds like you're saying "I tried to start a wagon on WOD, I found out that I couldn't get him lynched so I backed off." Which is not a town mindset. IMO town would have waited for him to respond and left the vote on him.
“Can you explain to me, Mister Blue, why it is not a town mindset to want to lynch somebody the member of the town feels is mafia but back off when they realize that they cannot rally enough support for the lynch at that point in time? Why beat a dead horse that can be resuscitated later when attentions aren't elsewhere, in other words? Moreover, if somebody (in this case, you) is behaving succinctly more like a member of the mafia, why on earth “would that member of the town change their vote to a far more viable, to quote a word I've seen floating around this subforum, "scumspect"?
You unvoted because your reasons for voting WOD were what you called weak. You didn’t actually vote me until THIS POST so how is it you can justify your response here? You didn’t change your vote to another person you simply unvoted. The use of the phrase “to quote a word I’ve seen floating around this subforum” feels like you’re trying too hard to seem like an ingénue and again I don’t like it.
--------------------
Also i'm getting closer to the point where i posted the first block of text so i'm done with that for now (done with the literal interpretation of my re-read at least). I have more stuff to respond to but I'm either distracted or I just can't analyze because all of the posts and responses are overloading me.
Clearly it wasn't straightforward to me, since I misunderstood it both here and at the tail end of the discussion, and frankly, the entire thing still seems a bit impenetrable to me. In addition, if this post was meant to be an offensive move on this particular discussion, rather than just a request for clarification, wouldn't I have followed up on this, say, by joining your vote?
Maybe you'd like to explain to me how "How many strikes are you implying he gets?" is confusingly worded? Your second sentence is defending yourself against something I never said or implied.
Quote from Liquidity Crisis »
This sounds like a disagreement about personal preferences to me. Without going into detail about my other game on this site still in progress, there are some single posts which I find worthy of votes by themselves, and some that are deserving of follow-up but not a vote. Paranoia is the kind of thing that can go either way - it's one of those factors that necessitates treating newer players as a separate category, for example - so I didn't immediately spring on it, but apparently you feel differently about that.
So even though you were not voting anyone at the time, and it was literally the first thing you found scummy (or even potentially scummy) in the game, you chose not to vote?
Quote from Liquidity Crisis »
So your problem here is what, ambiguous language? Let's not forget you asked me what my opinion of him was immediately after, and I gave you a definite response. It wasn't meant to be ambiguous. You make it sound like this post is wholly divorced from that subsequent clarification.
OK, I buy this.
Quote from Liquidity Crisis »
As established, I entirely misjudged that conversation, which accounts for everything below barning EP, which I'll admit I did. Ironically, barning EP led to me misjudging the conversation, because I entered from the midpoint and thus further misunderstood the whole "strikes" debacle, which led to me misinterpreting that quote there.
Being an idiot isn't a scum tell, however, and that post reads like someone who just doesn't know what the hell he's talking about, but thinks he does (note, for example, the gross misattribution of the original strikes metaphor). If anything, this post represents my efforts at positive contribution - it's just that I got it all wrong.
If I was indeed being an overly-cautious scum, by contrast, it would be easier to just barn EP, or barn EP and make a simpler point of "positive matter".
Then why - in your next post, after it had been established that you misjudged the conversation - did you not unvote, but continued to try and justify your vote? And no, a straight barn can bring you a lot of attention: scum - whether of the cautious variety or not - prefer to at least have some kind of original reasoning for their vote.
Quote from Liquidity Crisis »
Furthermore, I would argue there's no tonal confusion like you attribute - there's nothing inconsistent about withdrawing a mistaken argument and substituting a more concrete one based on the same evidence, which is the gist of that post. Clearly I misinterpreted the post, but my reaction - that there was something funny about that particular quote - holds between the two posts.
As for the last bit, it's undoubtedly self-conscious, but (again acknowledging my other game is still in progress, so I can't go delving for evidence) I make comments like that as both town and scum. And it's not meant to excuse my behavior, it's another tacit admission I screwed up. So yes, that bit is "nervous and defensive", but the entire post is nervous and defensive (or, moreso, apologetic), and it's that way because I know I screwed up.
Except that your argument is - for lack of a better word - bull****. #106 was blue's original post (the relevant part is the second paragraph from the bottom). You claim that barning EP's points caused you to misevaluate blue's post. You then re-evaluated your position re: barning EP, reviewed that very same blue post, but still tried to call it a scum post. I don't really buy it. The thing that's holding me back is that this doesn't fit that well with being super quick to drop the whole thing at atlseal's instigation - I don't think scum would do that.
Quote from Liquidity Crisis »
1) the structure of the game so far, which has largely circled around two rather-impenetrable arguments (Blue and BlueElectric, and the fake-PR bit), the former because it was built on a confusing metaphorical exchange between two unclear writers, and the latter because it was built almost entirely on WoD gaming the mod. This impenetrability has made it harder for me to get a real sense of what's going on, hence cautiousness
I buy this.
Quote from Liquidity Crisis »
I'll work to address both of these this weekend by rereading the thread and bringing back some more solid reads.
Actually seeing you do what you've said in this post could go a long way towards assuaging my suspicions.
Quote from blue »
#101 – TIM – You didn’t answer this question I asked Do you think scum or town is more likely to be concerned about dying? Why?
Scum are more likely to be concerned about dying, because town usually feel they are better equipped to defend themselves (by virtue of being right).
Sorry, used to be able to play three games at once. Work's too busy for me to be able to provide the necessary time for two games at the same time. I'm going to have to ask to be replaced out.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're town and I'm mafia, you've already lost. You just don't know it yet.
As far as I can see, nothing has changed from this post:
... to your latest post:
Whether he is or is not spot should have no relevance to your opinion of him for that is not what you voted him for. Your reasons for voting are outlined quite clearly above and nothing has happened to counter those reasons.
I don't like this and I don't like the fact that you voted Guardman in the first place.
Vote Zajnet
Doesn't look like he's worried about who he is but whether or not he's faking the PR. Is that what your questioning? Zajnet questioning Gmans name?
And now Gman jumps on with a vote too. Looks like out of the blue, and to me based on faulty reasoning.
@TIM: I think he's "cautious town" more than scum.
Unvote if I was voting anybody.
I need to reread blue and BlueElectric, but I think there's at least one scum between them. As for Guardman, I haven't decided what to do about him yet.
@TIM: I think he's "cautious town" more than scum.
Unvote if I was voting anybody.
I need to reread blue and BlueElectric, but I think there's at least one scum between them. As for Guardman, I haven't decided what to do about him yet.
@TIM: I think he's "cautious town" more than scum.
Unvote if I was voting anybody.
I need to reread blue and BlueElectric, but I think there's at least one scum between them. As for Guardman, I haven't decided what to do about him yet.
Well, now I'm 10x more interested in Zajnet and LC than anyone else.
#103 – Emo – You should be getting an idea of my thought process by this point in the reread. What you see as an attack I claim is just asking questions. What you see as a valid reason to vote I see as a reason to ask more questions. We define and approach things differently. By you calling my questions “accusations and attacks” (re: the “empty question” post) It makes me feel like you’re more aggressive than I am. I am not saying this is indicative of any alignment.
I disagree that being aware of something == being scared of something happening. Please indicate in my response to Syrenz where I am lying and making up logic. And please show me where I’m making up logic in that response you quoted. I don’t think your statement here is justified.
I already did; you spend a ton of time explaining what you posted, and don't spend a lot of time explaining what you hoped it would accomplish.
-----
Guardman, use my posts or die. Seriously, the whole point is to avoid exchanges like the one you had with AE. I don't know why TFF and you resist, but TFF had to break down and use them and his PR was easier to understand.
Following being distracted by a poker game (get it? Prerelease? Cards? lol), the kittehs aboard the Starship Kittehprise resumed their normal business for the day: hunting down undesirables.
Sorry, used to be able to play three games at once. Work's too busy for me to be able to provide the necessary time for two games at the same time. I'm going to have to ask to be replaced out.
Not bolded, but assuming it's legit? Seeking replacement now.
You were in Flame Warriors, and you saw everything that went down in that game.
Based on that, can I specifically request your opinion on Guardman? Am I being stupid?
I haven't gotten to anything you said about Guard yet and unfortunetly I got interupted at work while reading. I only got to the end of page 2 and right now my biggest scum read there is blue.
I will have everything tomorrow.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am female, hear me roar!
mafia win/lose record
town (12) 6/6
mafia (2) 2/0
Cult (1) 1/0
3rd party (0) 0/0
Guardman, use my posts or die. Seriously, the whole point is to avoid exchanges like the one you had with AE. I don't know why TFF and you resist, but TFF had to break down and use them and his PR was easier to understand.
Maybe you'd like to explain to me how "How many strikes are you implying he gets?" is confusingly worded?
At this point, looking back, I'm not really sure; it makes more sense now. I think the word that threw me off was "implying"; the whole strikes thing seemed (and seems, still) like a colloquialism, not actual strikes, so the whole concept of an implied "number of strikes one must get" didn't jive with that. That's the only explanation I can think of.
Your second sentence is defending yourself against something I never said or implied.
Fair enough. I can see now you're actually saying quite the opposite - that I was deliberately staying back. But that seems to me inconsistent with my behavior, because wouldn't step 2 of the fence-sitting plan be to make a move on it at a later time once I can see where I'll best land upright? That implies a level of awareness of the situation unlike my ultimate reaction to the debacle, which was to join in from a position of, well, utter idiocy.
You know I'm an experienced player, so here's a self-meta argument for you: do you think it is more likely I grossly misunderstood the argument and yet committed from a position of ignorance (something anyone, experienced or not, does from time to time), or do you think it is more likely I had genuine intention in both this post and my later move on Blue, and was foolish enough to think it was a good idea?
So even though you were not voting anyone at the time, and it was literally the first thing you found scummy (or even potentially scummy) in the game, you chose not to vote?
So it would seem. Again, this sounds like an argument from personal preferences, or rather personal tactics, rather than a genuine scum tell.
Then why - in your next post, after it had been established that you misjudged the conversation - did you not unvote, but continued to try and justify your vote?
Because at the time I thought it was a good vote, despite the mistake, for the reasons outlined in that post?
(Only an idiot doubles-down on his idiocy.)
And no, a straight barn can bring you a lot of attention: scum - whether of the cautious variety or not - prefer to at least have some kind of original reasoning for their vote.
In theory, yeah, but in practice we all know not everyone who gets on a wagon has new evidence. It would have been less risky to say something to the effect of "EP's got it right and covered everything, Vote Blue", since if I'm scum, I know all the evidence against Blue the townie is bad, and thus every new piece of "evidence" increases my exposure and directly links me to the bad wagon, whereas if the wagon falters, I can just say "I thought EP's case was good, but I guess it wasn't quite that" and none will be the wiser.
Yes, yes, barning scum tell. Truth is, everyone barns from time to time. Unless you're thinking about intentions, it's a null-tell.
Except that your argument is - for lack of a better word - bull****. #106 was blue's original post (the relevant part is the second paragraph from the bottom). You claim that barning EP's points caused you to misevaluate blue's post. You then re-evaluated your position re: barning EP, reviewed that very same blue post, but still tried to call it a scum post. I don't really buy it.
Again, though, the distinction between bull**** (a deliberate forgery) and idiocy (an incredibly, but unintentionally, flawed argument) remains, and I submit again the tones point toward the latter. I wasn't floating it out there to see if it stuck to something - I honestly believed it.
The thing that's holding me back is that this doesn't fit that well with being super quick to drop the whole thing at atlseal's instigation - I don't think scum would do that.
Actually, if that was indeed what I had done (drop it as soon as atlseal spoke up), then I'd say I was a panicking scum, but instead I admitted his point was valid and offered to reread and reassess. Said reread and reassessment cemented the recognition that I screwed up royally.
So over three posts, you can see constant withdrawal as I become less sure, but at no point do I freak out, drop the thing, and run away. That's conviction.
Actually seeing you do what you've said in this post could go a long way towards assuaging my suspicions.
I'm not pushing the issue any further, but you would be the first that the strategy failed with (of the games I've played with what are effectively mutes). PM did a stellar job.
Now, if you want more "Guardman says" sentences you should cobble some posts together with what you want and we will make it and i will link it in my sig.
Mister DoG for reasons I've already stated as well as the fact that he hasn't done anything remotely resembling a town action since then.
Mister Iceman for tone and metagaming reasons.
Mister Pinata is town.
Mister Kitty is town.
Mister Zaj is probably town.
Mister Kah is probably town.
The rest of the players are pretty hard to read. I'm not sure what to make of Mister Seal's actions up to this point in the game, but hopefully, Miss Pinky will be more transparent.
Not merely missing.. Lost. Its being to feel like I look away for 5 mins and another 100 odd posts arrive. Doesn't help that Blue + Blue Electric are the most frequent posters.
Their argument about the actions of WoD went circular very quickly with each of them refuting/ignoring each others points. I am not happy to lable either scum but equally willing to bet that if one is the other isn't.
Looking back on it, it appears that getting information out of either of them is harder than pulling teeth. Would be nice if the pair of them were more forthcomming immeadiatly instead of slow rolling. Agree with you that Blue is worse for this. Most of his posts are very dense, almost Melville like (listening to Moby Dick atm).
Archamage Eternal also seems to be as secretive as BE was earlier. Reminding me a lot of how Seppel has been recently large number of posts with a low word count.
AE any chance you could drop one and increase the other
Blue Thanks for that timeline/ analysis but any chance you could break the next one up a bit more so it does not look quite so intimindating.
Not sure what you and WoD are seeing in Guardman. Is it just that he appears to be claiming Spot. And are you basing this soft claim off that single LolCat image?
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
Then answer the charge clearly.
here
That's laughable. blue was spanked by multiple people for appearing afraid to die, so coming out much later saying "I'm not afraid to die, see?" is an extremely tainted example at best.
Excuses, excuses.
16 - I'm revealing non-essential information about my role, and my disappointment that I cannot use any quotes from my character for funsies.
21 - I've clarified this many times, I'm pointing out BE's logic is wrong since he ignored atlseal.
24 - I clearly know what I'm saying, but I had no interest in sharing.
29 - Too bad. Next time think how you want to approach your questioning better instead of just throwing accusations. Also, unvoting is stupid in general unless it's actually going to do harm voting for someone. Hell, just look at how much fluff is in your PBPA. You lack a level of structure needed to express your points, and are playing a analytical player while posting in a reactive fashion like an instinctive one.
33 - Explained a couple times now.
35 - Good, because there was no need I was teasing my buddy SYRENZ.
39 - Yep, glad to see you needed to ask four time int he PBPA before getting here. Also, if you've noticed WoD doesn't pay attention to much if anything at all - so BE saying WoD is scummy for not paying attention is just silly because it is WoD (on top of it being so early int he game).
53 - It could only lead to a conversation that would hurt the town if left unchecked, so I said something. Also, Kahedron's post was complaining about leaving RVS, your post was taking action to show you were getting down to business. It felt like posturing to make yourself look good, which is something a scum wants to do - townies have no need to care about appearances like when you decided your not claiming. Can you understand wher eI made a distinction better?
63 - Your posts had pretty meaningless statements while using negetively charged language. It doesn't mean anything to say "deflecting much" but the use of the term "deflecting" gives it weight by using a word that mafia players recognize as a bad thing. Same with the statement about strikes. The number of strikes is completely devoid of meaning, since we all understand more strikes = bad. These questions are imply both people are scummy for what they are doing, but with no real meaning the questions are never going to get a concrete answer. It means it's easy for a crafty scum to place a vote on the worse answer and continue to press the issue. It's a very common tactic, therefore it's a scum tell.
Your confusing being wrong with being manipulative. BE's case on WoD was wrong, but the clarity of bad logic makes it read as genuine scum hunting. Your questions read as being manipulative because they appear to have meaning (because they sound like attacks) but don't (because they lack content).
I am Spot
I am not Spot
I will not say whether or not I am Spot.
Unvote while I wait for his answer. Sorry I don't really have time to post more
EDH:
:symb::symb: Marrow-Gnawer :symb::symb: - :symw::symu: Grand Arbiter Augustin IV :symw::symu: - :symb::symb: Toshiro Umezawa :symb::symb: - :symg::symg: Sachi, Daughter of Seshiro :symg::symg:
High Mage of Arcane Babblings of [The Izzet]
MafiaScum Wiki Page
LC [URL="http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=7850115&postcount=77"]#77[/URL]: I feel like "paranoid as hell" is usually something that accompanies a vote. Especially given that he's concerned that Zaj unvoted blue. I feel like this whole posts shows an unwillingness to get involved in the meat of the actual discussions nor to lay down a real opinion backed up by a vote.
LC [URL="http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=7850789&postcount=84"]#84[/URL]: Again, I find the entire post too cautious and ambiguous. I was actually getting ready to call this a town post when I read the last part about "too earnest to be scum" - but then he turns it into a way to back up others' attempts to draw out some meta information, rather than out-and-out going with the read and declaring BE town, which is what I would do if I were town. I don't think this is necessarily a bad post, I think there are signs of scumhunting here, but I think it once again shows an unwillingness to stick his head on the line or commit to any kind of solid opinion. The fact that I actually had to ask whether LC thinks BE is town at this point shows how ambiguous this all is.
[URL="http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=7854312&postcount=117"]LC #117[/URL]: This is a pretty scummy post. LC could have voted earlier on charges of paranoia, but chose not to - OK, fine, that's not the strongest of tells as stuff happened in the interim. Rather than the timing, the justification is the real issue: a straight barn of EP (whose points mostly suck and I agree with atlseal that he's reading scum into places where there isn't any), couple with a nonsense piece of analysis on the selected blue quote. I don't see anything "shifty" or weird about the "tone" in that quote and I'm pretty convinced that LC just decided he was going to vote blue and needed to cobble together some kind of original reasoning.
LC [URL="http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=7854739&postcount=131"]#131[/URL]: So now it has been pointed out that the entire "strikes" metaphor was not actually blue's, but BE's. This entire post is an incredibly confusing justification for LC to keep his vote on blue which doesn't mesh at all well with its apologetic tone. More arguing semantics while attacking blue for doing the same. If LC were town, I would have expected him to say something to the effect of "point retracted, but I still agree with EP's X, Y and Z". Finally the "Yeesh, I should go back to bed" sounds nervous and defensive.
LC [URL="http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=7856551&postcount=137"]#137[/URL]: I find this to be bending to atlseal far too easily. You don't go from wanting someone to claim and barning all of EP's points (as well as semantically arguing your own) to reconsidering everything.
LC [URL="http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=7863103&postcount=160"]#160[/URL]: Again, I get the overcautious feeling coming from this post, but it's mainly a problem given the subsequent one:
LC [URL="http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=7863897&postcount=168"]#168[/URL: I already commented on this post earlier in my [URL="http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=7868039&postcount=183"]#183[/URL], but it also directly contradicts #160. There's just absolutely no purpose in all this rather than pure fence-sitting - saying that scum have faked post restrictions, only to turn around and say town have faked post restrictions too. Perhaps most egregious is "but we don't know if Guardman is faking it, and as long as he doesn't give us straight answers using EP's questions, we can't learn more": why would LC not try and get Guardman to give straight answers! He's obviously interested in resolving the issue, but he's much more willing to commentate than give real answers.
I guess I could see LC being really cautious town, which negates some of my points, but I find this difficult to believe given that we know he's a player who by nature calls people "idiots". I'm quite happy with my vote where it is and I hope the rest of you will give it some good consideration.
Unvote if I was voting anybody.
I need to reread blue and BlueElectric, but I think there's at least one scum between them. As for Guardman, I haven't decided what to do about him yet.
EDH:
:symb::symb: Marrow-Gnawer :symb::symb: - :symw::symu: Grand Arbiter Augustin IV :symw::symu: - :symb::symb: Toshiro Umezawa :symb::symb: - :symg::symg: Sachi, Daughter of Seshiro :symg::symg:
High Mage of Arcane Babblings of [The Izzet]
MafiaScum Wiki Page
It doesn't look like cautious town to me.
Clearly it wasn't straightforward to me, since I misunderstood it both here and at the tail end of the discussion, and frankly, the entire thing still seems a bit impenetrable to me. In addition, if this post was meant to be an offensive move on this particular discussion, rather than just a request for clarification, wouldn't I have followed up on this, say, by joining your vote?
This sounds like a disagreement about personal preferences to me. Without going into detail about my other game on this site still in progress, there are some single posts which I find worthy of votes by themselves, and some that are deserving of follow-up but not a vote. Paranoia is the kind of thing that can go either way - it's one of those factors that necessitates treating newer players as a separate category, for example - so I didn't immediately spring on it, but apparently you feel differently about that.
I'll admit, however, that I've been hanging observations out on the line too much this game (there's this one, and the scum-faking-PRs comment) without context or analysis. I'll work on rectifying that.
So your problem here is what, ambiguous language? Let's not forget you asked me what my opinion of him was immediately after, and I gave you a definite response. It wasn't meant to be ambiguous. You make it sound like this post is wholly divorced from that subsequent clarification.
The bolded comment is important, since a lot of your criticisms read to me as relying on a difference of opinion. (Or that's a Freudian slip. ;))
As established, I entirely misjudged that conversation, which accounts for everything below barning EP, which I'll admit I did. Ironically, barning EP led to me misjudging the conversation, because I entered from the midpoint and thus further misunderstood the whole "strikes" debacle, which led to me misinterpreting that quote there.
Being an idiot isn't a scum tell, however, and that post reads like someone who just doesn't know what the hell he's talking about, but thinks he does (note, for example, the gross misattribution of the original strikes metaphor). If anything, this post represents my efforts at positive contribution - it's just that I got it all wrong.
If I was indeed being an overly-cautious scum, by contrast, it would be easier to just barn EP, or barn EP and make a simpler point of "positive matter".
I stand behind the "two premises" argument - it still does read like an attempt to blur the line between "three strikes and you're out" and BE's true meaning to the effect of spreading doubt.
Furthermore, I would argue there's no tonal confusion like you attribute - there's nothing inconsistent about withdrawing a mistaken argument and substituting a more concrete one based on the same evidence, which is the gist of that post. Clearly I misinterpreted the post, but my reaction - that there was something funny about that particular quote - holds between the two posts.
As for the last bit, it's undoubtedly self-conscious, but (again acknowledging my other game is still in progress, so I can't go delving for evidence) I make comments like that as both town and scum. And it's not meant to excuse my behavior, it's another tacit admission I screwed up. So yes, that bit is "nervous and defensive", but the entire post is nervous and defensive (or, moreso, apologetic), and it's that way because I know I screwed up.
You do if half your case was as bad as mine was, (a), and (b) if it's a reasonable point he makes. And let's be clear - I'm conceding his point, I'm not throwing everything I've said (besides the idiotic stuff, natch) out the window. It's a concession, not a full capitulation - important distinction.
The contrast with 160 only exists if you attribute some subtext to that original comment, but I would argue it was made as a general observation with no subtext, and I say that because I hadn't actually read through WoD's "case" and thus had no idea what to make of it, but just thought it was a helpful thing to note that scum have faked PRs before. (The possibility of a scum-PR particularly struck me because I was in that game I mentioned.)
I didn't do my homework, I admit - but your point then seems to be that I was trying to push a wagon without having actually read the wagon or seen its merit. That not only seems like a terrible strategy, it seems entirely inconsistent with your claim that I've been cautious this game.
Finally, see also the "paranoid as hell" comment in 77. Likewise, 166 exists in relation to 160 in the same way 86 exists in relation to 84 (though that was more a case of unclear language than unclear subtext).
More than some - almost every post on which you chose to comment was an example of "cautiousness". Hopefully the above will address the rest of the problems.
First, on the "idiots" bit - cautiousness and trolling aren't mutually exclusive. It's not like I knocked off the trolling this game, either - it crops up in 84, for example.
As for the general cautiousness, I'll acknowledge I've been more than a bit noncommittal. I argue that's a function of a couple of factors -
1) the structure of the game so far, which has largely circled around two rather-impenetrable arguments (Blue and BlueElectric, and the fake-PR bit), the former because it was built on a confusing metaphorical exchange between two unclear writers, and the latter because it was built almost entirely on WoD gaming the mod. This impenetrability has made it harder for me to get a real sense of what's going on, hence cautiousness - and
2) I've been pretty lazy this game. As much as I'd like to say is because I haven't been in two games at once in a long time, is really just me not trying hard enough.
I'll work to address both of these this weekend by rereading the thread and bringing back some more solid reads.
Let's also not forget there are deliberate reasons for townies to be cautious, such as trying to slow-roll a power role. Those don't apply to me in this case, but it's worth noting.
I've lost all the posts I quoted from Thursday and am too lazy to do that again. But basically, my problems with him:
His second post in the game regarding Blue's "confusingly written" post struck me as the type of thing scum would say to get some townie points. It also felt like he was dealing with inside information as the post could go either way - so assuming that Blue was just town having trouble expressing himself felt off.
His post where he concedes atlseal's point and lets go of the Blue wagon (which he had seemed to be in full support of a little earlier) also felt wrong. But he has now addressed this somewhat.
Lastly, as already mentioned I don't like his recent posts regarding Guardman. First he chimes in "Scum do this." which as I said, feels like he's just trying to add fuel to the wagon without voting. This is backed up by the fact that after I question him on this, he suddenly recalls that town can do this as well. All in all I don't like this part.
The rest of his posts are fairly null to me.
However, I'd like to see more of his posts and I am willing to hold on this wagon to see this:
Why?
---
As far as I can see, nothing has changed from this post:
... to your latest post:
Whether he is or is not spot should have no relevance to your opinion of him for that is not what you voted him for. Your reasons for voting are outlined quite clearly above and nothing has happened to counter those reasons.
I don't like this and I don't like the fact that you voted Guardman in the first place.
Vote Zajnet
--------------------
Scum list:
Zajnet - Scummy for the reasons outlined above.
LC - Scummy for the reasons outlined above.
Blue Electric - Scummy for there being a complete lack of consistency between the things she posts and strange and confusing plays throughout the game. I am however torn between her being scummy or just a strange player.
Blue - Getting overall town vibe from posts now. Not someone I am interested in pursuing at present.
atlseal - I have not decided how I read atlseal at present.
TheIceMan - Townish for scumhunting and displaying mindsets similar to my own beliefs.
Kahedron - Not enough posts to go on.
Emo Pinata - I have not decided how I read emo pinata at present.
Wrath of Dog - Don't like that he decided Guardman was a good direction. Would like to see more of his posts though (especially now that he has apparently dropped Guardman).
Guardman - I don't feel it's likely that he's faking the PR. At the same time, I feel it is more likely that MH would give a townie a PR over a scum. This is modgaming, but slight town.
Archmage Eternal - Feels like Archmage Eternal. Don't have much of a read on him other than that at this point.
Lair of the Cat (Mafia Stats)
Unvote
Vote Zajnet
One note: Regardless of Guardman having a PR or NOT he's playing like he has one. Clearly you can get answers out of him if you ask yes or no questions. It is the least convoluted way to "work around" it. I don't like this "let's vote him because we think he's faking a PR" logic. I don't know if there's a mafia term for it, but it's like saying "Inside that completely sealed room that you can't see into because it has no doors and no windows there's a delicious sandwich." You can't prove there's a sandwich in there you can't know it's delicious other than because you were told so. You can either believe it or not but you can't prove it. Saying I disbelieve you doesn't get you into the room with the sandwich. Since I have no mafia term for this I'll just call it a Sandwich theory.
If you want content out of him ask him yes or no questions.
Are there any pressing questions people need answered of me before I start posting walls of text? (It will take a while to get my next post up so I'll have time to answer between)
Whoever mentioned "I wish there was a vote in there" I can't tell if you wanted me to vote after my re-read or mention other people's votes. Either way since I'm not done with my re-read I'm not ready to vote again and I'm not convinced my vote isn't already in the right place.
I mulled over the decisions I had made this game and changed my stances on a lot of them throughout being reasoned with, hence the inconsistencies.
If you say so, Mister Seal.
I concluded the hunt early. And then I dropped it temporarily.
I am not convinced that I'm wrong about Mister DoG. However, I decided to drop it for the time being.
I believe that if Mister Blue is mafia, that you are as well, Mister Seal.
Also, I'm going to go out on a limb and Unvote, Vote TheIceMan.
#84 – LC – Bad players are more likely to get a pass? Are you saying “If you can provide evidence that you’re a bad player we can excuse your bad play?” Are you saying that up to this point BE is playing badly? Other than your attack on BE’s logic regarding RVS and 3rd votes, what indicates that BE is playing badly for you? After BE/ATL have confirmed that BE has extensive mafia history AND BE states in post #92 “I don’t see you finding a mafia’s motivation behind my actions.” Can you still justify your statement that BE “genuinely has no idea how to play as scum”?
#96 – BE - It’s evident especially in this post that you’re responding to answers to questions you haven’t asked. The reason town do this is because they’re too cocky or think they have more experience than the person they’re talking to so they feel more justified in their interpretation of things. The reason scum do this is to not give town an opportunity to answer for themselves. But, regardless of the motivation behind it, it’s scummy because you’re not giving someone an opportunity to answer the question and it seems like you don’t care if you get their answer at all. If you are town you should want every bit of information. As it is, you seem to have made up your mind about people and don’t actually want to give them a chance to prove you wrong. That’s very short sighted and unfair to anyone you actually deem scummy.
#97 – Kahedron – Mentions a full read a couple times so I’m eager to hear thoughts from it. You said that BE was being defensive/ secretive: How? Have you completed your full read? Why does it matter how long the RVS is to you?
#101 – TIM – You didn’t answer this question I asked Do you think scum or town is more likely to be concerned about dying? Why?
#102 – BE – If faking a pr can be towny or scummy do you see a point in voting someone who continues to post with a PR? I have already explained why I don’t believe you’re using a towny mindset when you assume “The most probably outcome of this exchange” Then you ask me for my game history when you’ve said that that isn’t relevant. Why is it not relevant for you but it’s relevant for me? You’re definitely sounding too cocky here with your patronizing “by all means give me more reason to vote you” It also doesn’t make sense to me that you’re at once concerned that putting your vote on me might bring me an accidental hammer AND you don’t even know what L-X I’m at. I get the feeling that “such as myself; are you at L-2? That’s the impression I’m under” is meant to seem “innocent” sounding. Also if a player happens to vote me into accidental hammer range and I accidentally get hammered don’t you think THAT Would provide useful information to the town? I also find it suspicious that you think I’m skittish and paranoid but I’m ignoring the pressure on me. You’ve contradicted yourself within this post even. Continuing to press you for information is NOT a deflection away from my case. Cases can co-exist ya know. In fact I’d argue that there’s a running case on everyone until they’ve basically proven themselves to be town. Even then I’d still be suspicious.
#103 – Emo – You should be getting an idea of my thought process by this point in the reread. What you see as an attack I claim is just asking questions. What you see as a valid reason to vote I see as a reason to ask more questions. We define and approach things differently. By you calling my questions “accusations and attacks” (re: the “empty question” post) It makes me feel like you’re more aggressive than I am. I am not saying this is indicative of any alignment.
I disagree that being aware of something == being scared of something happening.
Please indicate in my response to Syrenz where I am lying and making up logic. And please show me where I’m making up logic in that response you quoted. I don’t think your statement here is justified.
#111 – BE – I have already chimed in on how we can get information from Guardman; I don’t believe this line of thinking regarding his PR is helpful. You didn’t unvote because attentions were elsewhere.
Originally Posted by blue
I don't like the way you phrase things at all. It feels manipulative and so I distrust you. And while I understand what you're saying it also sounds like you're saying "I tried to start a wagon on WOD, I found out that I couldn't get him lynched so I backed off." Which is not a town mindset. IMO town would have waited for him to respond and left the vote on him.
“Can you explain to me, Mister Blue, why it is not a town mindset to want to lynch somebody the member of the town feels is mafia but back off when they realize that they cannot rally enough support for the lynch at that point in time? Why beat a dead horse that can be resuscitated later when attentions aren't elsewhere, in other words? Moreover, if somebody (in this case, you) is behaving succinctly more like a member of the mafia, why on earth “would that member of the town change their vote to a far more viable, to quote a word I've seen floating around this subforum, "scumspect"?
You unvoted because your reasons for voting WOD were what you called weak. You didn’t actually vote me until THIS POST so how is it you can justify your response here? You didn’t change your vote to another person you simply unvoted. The use of the phrase “to quote a word I’ve seen floating around this subforum” feels like you’re trying too hard to seem like an ingénue and again I don’t like it.
--------------------
Also i'm getting closer to the point where i posted the first block of text so i'm done with that for now (done with the literal interpretation of my re-read at least). I have more stuff to respond to but I'm either distracted or I just can't analyze because all of the posts and responses are overloading me.
Maybe you'd like to explain to me how "How many strikes are you implying he gets?" is confusingly worded? Your second sentence is defending yourself against something I never said or implied.
So even though you were not voting anyone at the time, and it was literally the first thing you found scummy (or even potentially scummy) in the game, you chose not to vote?
OK, I buy this.
Then why - in your next post, after it had been established that you misjudged the conversation - did you not unvote, but continued to try and justify your vote? And no, a straight barn can bring you a lot of attention: scum - whether of the cautious variety or not - prefer to at least have some kind of original reasoning for their vote.
Except that your argument is - for lack of a better word - bull****. #106 was blue's original post (the relevant part is the second paragraph from the bottom). You claim that barning EP's points caused you to misevaluate blue's post. You then re-evaluated your position re: barning EP, reviewed that very same blue post, but still tried to call it a scum post. I don't really buy it. The thing that's holding me back is that this doesn't fit that well with being super quick to drop the whole thing at atlseal's instigation - I don't think scum would do that.
I buy this.
Actually seeing you do what you've said in this post could go a long way towards assuaging my suspicions.
Scum are more likely to be concerned about dying, because town usually feel they are better equipped to defend themselves (by virtue of being right).
Doesn't look like he's worried about who he is but whether or not he's faking the PR. Is that what your questioning? Zajnet questioning Gmans name?
And now Gman jumps on with a vote too. Looks like out of the blue, and to me based on faulty reasoning.
They hate us cause they ain't us.
Yes really.
Gman disagreeing with Zajnet.
Telling blue he agrees with Zajnets reactions to BEs wagon on WoD.
Nothing in his next post regarding Zajnet.
Nothing in this post but telling Zajet he's not spot.
Gman had plenty of time to engage Zajet but not until someone comes along and places a vote on Zajnet does Gman put his vote down.
Not buying it.
Unvote Vote Guardman.
They hate us cause they ain't us.
Really? Your going with that? The links are all there. I didn't make up your posts.
They hate us cause they ain't us.
They hate us cause they ain't us.
I already did; you spend a ton of time explaining what you posted, and don't spend a lot of time explaining what you hoped it would accomplish.
-----
Guardman, use my posts or die. Seriously, the whole point is to avoid exchanges like the one you had with AE. I don't know why TFF and you resist, but TFF had to break down and use them and his PR was easier to understand.
Following being distracted by a poker game (get it? Prerelease? Cards? lol), the kittehs aboard the Starship Kittehprise resumed their normal business for the day: hunting down undesirables.
Vote Count 1.3
blue (1): Liquidity Crisis
Emo_Pinata (1): atlseal
BlueElectric (1): blue
Guardman (1): Archmage Eternal
Liquidity Crisis (2): TheIceMan; Emo_Pinata
Zajnet (2): Syrenz; Guardman
TheIceMan (1): BlueElectric
Not Voting (3): Kahedron; Zajnet; Wrath_of_DoG
With 12 alive, it is 7 to lynch.
Please don't hesitate to point out any mistakes.
Not bolded, but assuming it's legit? Seeking replacement now.
Tired of corporate corruption ruining your favorite MtG site?
Come join ours!!
We even have Mafia!!
Tired of corporate corruption ruining your favorite MtG site?
Come join ours!!
We even have Mafia!!
Hi all!
I'm working on a read through of this game. I should get it done in the next 2 to 3 days.
mafia win/lose record
town (12) 6/6
mafia (2) 2/0
Cult (1) 1/0
3rd party (0) 0/0
mafia record
Also known at mafiascum as farside22
mafia win/lose record
town (12) 6/6
mafia (2) 2/0
Cult (1) 1/0
3rd party (0) 0/0
mafia record
Also known at mafiascum as farside22
Based on that, can I specifically request your opinion on Guardman? Am I being stupid?
I haven't gotten to anything you said about Guard yet and unfortunetly I got interupted at work while reading. I only got to the end of page 2 and right now my biggest scum read there is blue.
I will have everything tomorrow.
mafia win/lose record
town (12) 6/6
mafia (2) 2/0
Cult (1) 1/0
3rd party (0) 0/0
mafia record
Also known at mafiascum as farside22
At this point, looking back, I'm not really sure; it makes more sense now. I think the word that threw me off was "implying"; the whole strikes thing seemed (and seems, still) like a colloquialism, not actual strikes, so the whole concept of an implied "number of strikes one must get" didn't jive with that. That's the only explanation I can think of.
Fair enough. I can see now you're actually saying quite the opposite - that I was deliberately staying back. But that seems to me inconsistent with my behavior, because wouldn't step 2 of the fence-sitting plan be to make a move on it at a later time once I can see where I'll best land upright? That implies a level of awareness of the situation unlike my ultimate reaction to the debacle, which was to join in from a position of, well, utter idiocy.
You know I'm an experienced player, so here's a self-meta argument for you: do you think it is more likely I grossly misunderstood the argument and yet committed from a position of ignorance (something anyone, experienced or not, does from time to time), or do you think it is more likely I had genuine intention in both this post and my later move on Blue, and was foolish enough to think it was a good idea?
So it would seem. Again, this sounds like an argument from personal preferences, or rather personal tactics, rather than a genuine scum tell.
Because at the time I thought it was a good vote, despite the mistake, for the reasons outlined in that post?
(Only an idiot doubles-down on his idiocy.)
In theory, yeah, but in practice we all know not everyone who gets on a wagon has new evidence. It would have been less risky to say something to the effect of "EP's got it right and covered everything, Vote Blue", since if I'm scum, I know all the evidence against Blue the townie is bad, and thus every new piece of "evidence" increases my exposure and directly links me to the bad wagon, whereas if the wagon falters, I can just say "I thought EP's case was good, but I guess it wasn't quite that" and none will be the wiser.
Yes, yes, barning scum tell. Truth is, everyone barns from time to time. Unless you're thinking about intentions, it's a null-tell.
Again, though, the distinction between bull**** (a deliberate forgery) and idiocy (an incredibly, but unintentionally, flawed argument) remains, and I submit again the tones point toward the latter. I wasn't floating it out there to see if it stuck to something - I honestly believed it.
Actually, if that was indeed what I had done (drop it as soon as atlseal spoke up), then I'd say I was a panicking scum, but instead I admitted his point was valid and offered to reread and reassess. Said reread and reassessment cemented the recognition that I screwed up royally.
So over three posts, you can see constant withdrawal as I become less sure, but at no point do I freak out, drop the thing, and run away. That's conviction.
Workin' on it. Had a busy weekend.
In other news, the push on Guardman is totally bunk.
LC
blue
Zajnet
pinkys brain (post reading the game)
BE
I'm not pushing the issue any further, but you would be the first that the strategy failed with (of the games I've played with what are effectively mutes). PM did a stellar job.
Now, if you want more "Guardman says" sentences you should cobble some posts together with what you want and we will make it and i will link it in my sig.
Mister DoG
Mister Iceman
Uncertain.
Why?
Who's town?
Mister Iceman for tone and metagaming reasons.
Mister Pinata is town.
Mister Kitty is town.
Mister Zaj is probably town.
Mister Kah is probably town.
The rest of the players are pretty hard to read. I'm not sure what to make of Mister Seal's actions up to this point in the game, but hopefully, Miss Pinky will be more transparent.
Why is that?
They hate us cause they ain't us.