Okay, I don't think I care anymore about which one we lynch and which we shoot. If DRey's not going to claim, there's no more information to be had from those two today, so it doesn't much matter.
I've taken a few days off of the DRey issue to calm down, because his responses were invoking in me a rage that would do nothing but either 1.) Reduce my case on him in everyone elses eyes to ad-hominem and 2.) get me banned from this site for foul language.
Why my language couldn't be seen as a townie that is confused on how to proceed after his suspect claims cop? Because I'm thinking a lot about the correct course of action and that reflects on what I support, I'm just not sure.
Yes, it's different, but things have changed, I thought we could solve that with just the info we had, but in the end I'm not that sure it's actually possible. In the end I'm just too afraid of lynching the cop.
I don't think a confused townie would be trying to out other power roles just because their main suspect claimed one. If you're afraid of lynching a possible cop, why try to draw out another PR so they can be nightkilled?
Yes, I may be waffling, but that's because I'm town, I only know about my role and despite everything pointing to Caex be lying scum, I have no way to know that for sure. I'm still thinking about the best plan and probably I will come up with something new again after a while, because the more I think, the more I change opinions, that's the way humans work.
In my experience, waffling is something scum do in order to try and look like they were on the right side of history, not a townie conjecturing in thread. Changing your mind on an opinion is one thing, listing multiple competing opinions in another.
Uhh, no? Why are you misrepping me so badly? I WILL defend my statemens, I WILL give my reasons, but I don't want to give answers to possible lurking scum. I will not barn anyone because my reasons are my own only, and I do have them.
Before you talk about misrepresentations, read what you're quoting, and follow the interaction back. You kept stating that you had reasons for suspecting Xyre, but at this point YOU NEVER TOLD ANYONE ELSE WHAT THEY WERE AND YOU STILL HAVEN'T. Not telling your reasons = not defending your statements. Saying "Oh guys trust me I totally have a reason" is not a defense or an actual response.
False dichotomy, Kpaca just provided an example of a play that's not pro-town, and also not pro-scum: he falseclaimed vig. And do you know the correct course of action to guys that falseclaim vig when there's a real vig? It's to vig the liar back without counterclaiming. The thing is, he Kpaca does it all the time, both as town or scum. So that anti-town play is in fact null for him. He should not be vigged for that. My play was not pro-town neither pro-scum, I was just goofing around to gather reactions, in fact thinking better I think my play has been pro-town, because I'm getting everything I wanted and more. The game has been resurrected.
Not to me it's not. If someone is playing scummy, I'm going to call them out on it and attack them regardless if they "do it all the time." You refusing to explain yourself is anti-town, period. Admitting that your play is not pro-town makes you look worse to me because that means you know what you're doing is wrong.
Good question! To me the best way to caught strong scum is to catch them saying things they don't believe themselves. Xyre's play on this game is a shinning example of this, he's saying so many lies and things he could not possible advocate that I'm sure he's scum with an ulterior motive.
Ok...so how does skipping over a large portion of the posts in the game at this point help you catch anyone "saying things they don't believe themselves?" CITE SPECIFIC EXAMPLES OF WHERE YOU THINK XYRE IS SCUM. You continuously saying "Oh he's scum guys plz believe me" isn't going to convince anyone. Especially when we are asking you for what your reasoning is and YOU ARE REFUSING TO EXPLAIN IT.
I'm saddened by your shortcomings, whatever you accuse me here was done with the town best interests in heart, I've learned (amusingly with Kpaca)that by not providing my comprehensible reasons one can get two kind of responses:
a)Ask for clarification.
b)Mudsling, accusations and votes.
One of them is a town trait, the other not so much. Anyway, I don't have a scum read of you but I think you should calm down and chill, everything has an explanation and will be giving it this post.
I just took a few days off in order to calm down. A re-read in a better state of mind has not helped make me understand your play at all.
If you know your play is going to get people asking for clarification and voting you, why would you not also have learned that you should clarify what people are asking about? Apparently you haven't learned that, because you are continuing to ignore what is being questioned.
The rest of his posts from then until now paint him in an even worse light because he is flailing, misrepresenting, and refusing to claim when asked while being voted. DRey A majority of the town is voting you, stating suspicion of you, and/or asking you to claim. Refusing to do so is anti-town play. Also, I think it's really ironic that you of all people are asking others to defend their vote on you when you've been refusing to do the same thing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-[thread=14456]The [Untitled] Avatar and Sig shop![/thread] Avatar from:[thread=25376] [Epic Graphics][/thread]
@Xyre: What is your rationale for wanting me shot tonight?
I'll spell out why I don't think it's a good idea:
-The scum have to kill me tonight. But if you call the vig shot, they are free to NK a stronger player and get two kills for the price of one.
-If they don't kill me, I'll have an investigation result. In that case, I can offer myself up as the D2 lynch to confirm said result.
I'm not living to D3 no matter how this game plays out. We should use me to put the scum in a position where they're forced to dance to the town's tune.
Everything scares me... kitties scare me... squirrels scare me... corpses....corpses bring forth a pletora of confusing feeling which i prefer not to dwell on...:p
I'll say it again: I don't trust you enough to believe there's any advantage to you living. I want you and DRey dead - one lynched, one vigged.
I just figure there's more information to be had if we lynch DRey and vig you, because the mafia don't know if we have a vig or not and have to guess. Whatever they do, we learn something about them (particularly in the context of your alignment, after your death).
It's also of note that in this post Caex has expressed suspicion on 6 players(me, Zion, Che, Well, Xyre, Star), and zero town reads. Remember this post when Caex flips scum.
For a moment, I thought you had a point, until I looked back at the post in question and saw that this was a blatant misrep. He discusses six players, but a couple of them were suspects he was backing off of. If anything, I found that post to be a point in Caex's favor.
In addition, your claim that it is "impossible" for Xyre to be town is simply untrue, and using words like "impossible" sounds like you're creating a false dilemma, trying to make it seem like he must be scum, when that just isn't the case.
Throwing suspicion on your attackers, misrepresenting them, and not claiming when you are L-2? I'd vote, but I want that claim first please.
Whatever happened to your suspicion? The only thing that you described as changing was "genuine analysis of Caex", which only really applies to "throwing suspicion on your attackers".
I think I really screwed myself this game. When I saw my role PM I basically thought "Hey, I'm unlynchable!" I took it as an excuse to play faster and looser than I normally would. Which is probably why I'm now forced to claim.
Not "play scummier". Play more aggressively and without a lot of regard for how I'm perceived. And yes, I do think being a cop makes me more resistant to lynching.
A few things:
1. You said earlier that you were interested in voting the biggest wagon.
2. You said your plan was to be roleblocked. Why wouldn't they just kill you instead?
3. If your claim was a contingency plan in the case suspicion fell on you, why the lines of "you'll feel stupid if this keeps up"?
1. Because the biggest wagon was Zionite. I said I was interested in voting Zionite.
2. Because if I came back D2 and said "Sorry guys, no result because of roleblock" there was a pretty good chance I'd be lynched. They could 2-for-1 the town by getting in a NK on a stronger player and blocking me. I was trying to get off at least one investigation before I die.
3. Because I didn't want to claim. As you said it was a contingency plan, not Plan A. I was trying to drop a hint that I had a PR.
1. Clarification: you said you were interested in voting Zionite because he was the biggest wagon. What relation does that have to you thinking he's scum?
2. Alright.
3. Why wouldn't that just get you killed?
Reading Drey's most recent response along with zindabad's analysis is making me reconsider things. Drey isn't my fav, but that looks like pretty genuine analysis of Caex.
I hate the idea of lynching a claimed cop without trying to get some use out of him, but at this point, I think knowing his alignment will be the more useful info to have now, rather than waiting for potential investigations that we won't even be able to trust until he flips.
Ultimately, he is the scummier of the two. I'd rather just get it done then have it possibly still hanging over our head in the morning.
Given that he has claimed to unblockable, Caex is too much of a potential detriment to the mafia. We won't be able to trust any of his results until he flips, but at that point, it could be invaluable. For that reason, if he is town, the mafia would have to be daft not to take him out sooner rather than later. The longer they wait, the worse it becomes when he does flip town. If he is scum, he's going down one way or the other.
Quote from caex »
To address your "let's vig Caex" post: I wonder if we shouldn't be calling out vig targets. If the scum know I'm going to be vigged, they can NK someone more townie. I think the vig should shoot someone else and force the scum to spend their kill on me. Because they pretty much have to unless they want me to get an investigation off. If I'm somehow alive tomorrow, I'll have a result. You can then lynch me to confirm my result and go from there.
This is a good point. If he is town, and we call the vig, the scum basically get a double kill tonight. If he is scum, with what he's claimed, he can't survive until the end. No reason to blow our load to early.
I find myself liking WoLG's analysis here. I also don't like how Drey flips from "no one counter claim" to "okay, now it's cool." What's changed?
@Xyre: What is your rationale for wanting me shot tonight?
I'll spell out why I don't think it's a good idea:
-The scum have to kill me tonight. But if you call the vig shot, they are free to NK a stronger player and get two kills for the price of one.
-If they don't kill me, I'll have an investigation result. In that case, I can offer myself up as the D2 lynch to confirm said result.
I'm not living to D3 no matter how this game plays out. We should use me to put the scum in a position where they're forced to dance to the town's tune.
Why wouldn't they kill you? You're the only claimed PR worth shooting. If you're telling the truth, we have to operate on the assumption that you'll be NKed. It's beneficial to the scum to have you dead ASAP; playing the WIFOM game and leaving you alive is very difficult with low reward.
It looks like you're trying to prime the possibility you'll survive because you're scum. I don't see how a town cop would think he'd survive a cop claim Day 1 and die by Day 3.
Your last sentence definitely doesn't sound like it's coming from a townie.
I don't know why they wouldn't kill me. But as I've said before: I tend to try to plan out things beforehand.
In this case, one of two things will happen tonight. I'll die or I'll live. I see no reason to only plan for one of them when we can plan for both just as easily.
Everything scares me... kitties scare me... squirrels scare me... corpses....corpses bring forth a pletora of confusing feeling which i prefer not to dwell on...:p
@Xyre: What is your rationale for wanting me shot tonight?
I'll spell out why I don't think it's a good idea:
-The scum have to kill me tonight. But if you call the vig shot, they are free to NK a stronger player and get two kills for the price of one.
-If they don't kill me, I'll have an investigation result. In that case, I can offer myself up as the D2 lynch to confirm said result.
I'm not living to D3 no matter how this game plays out. We should use me to put the scum in a position where they're forced to dance to the town's tune.
If you are alive after the night I'm voting you still. But please make up who you supposedly cop'd because it will be fun figuring out if you say one of your buddies is town or if you try and convict a strong townie.
That's 2 ghost votes DRey, now claim like a good boy townie.
I'm not sure if I have explicitly stated this or not, but:
Though I think Caex's play has been terrible, I am against lynching him today or calling the vig to hit him tonight.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-[thread=14456]The [Untitled] Avatar and Sig shop![/thread] Avatar from:[thread=25376] [Epic Graphics][/thread]
@Caex what do you think about Xyre after my cases on him?
I don't have time right now but I will acknowledge Well's bad post later.
Meanwhile I will claim. I'm Thorin II Oakenshield, Town Vigilante. I have a one shot ability called "Kill" and my flavor is something about Erebor. Tonight I was not planning on using my shoot or maybe killing scumXyre but I see no problem with being directed except I will never shoot Star, Wessel, Well or Zion cause they are my town reads. I'm obviously not shooting Caex but he's probably scum. Btw this town suck ass for making me claim, after I explained all my reasons for my cryptic play earlier on, how hard is to see Xyre is scum after my case on him?
@Wessel, actually I refused to claim in MGM. In fact from the top of my head: as town I've refused to claim in MGM, King Artur, Athagan, Eeevolution, Modern Family and maybe super mario world. There's probably more.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The game is not being dumbed down. Control is doing fine; Draw-Go is not the only kind of control. Aggro is doing fine; Red Deck Wins is not the only kind of aggro. Creature combat is an important core concept and belongs in every color. Mythic rarity is not destroying the game. People whine too much for no good reason. Magic is more popular than ever, so keep calm, brew some decks and play some damn cards.
I'm not sure if I have explicitly stated this or not, but:
Though I think Caex's play has been terrible, I am against lynching him today or calling the vig to hit him tonight.
Ahhhh.... this is so bad
The information gained will be worth it, we need it.
Unvote
I believe DRey's claim over Caex's, but please don't be ignorant and not listen to the towns request and just shoot who you think it best.
This is interesting now. Let DRey shoot Caex or lynch him? I don't know if I would trust DRey to even listen to the town and shoot Caex.
(Before someone asks me "why": One-shot vigilante is arguably more WIFOMy still than a cop claim, because it can't be proven unless he kills a member of the mafia. That, coupled with his unwillingness to shoot the aforementioned people, makes me think he will never be confirmed. And a one-shot vig can be faked by a gutsy mafia; hell, I've false-claimed a very similar role before myself as scum. And it's the kind of "nearly vanilla role" that suits a mafia claim; mafia don't generally like claiming vanilla because it feels untenable.
DRey breadcrumbed vig in post 281, but only after a ton of suspicion was on him so null tell, could be scum or town play.
At this point, I believe he is lying. 1 shot vig is an easy false claim for the mafia to make, and his play has not been pro-town.
@DRey Okay, how about this: Don't respond to my most recent post right away. Take a single post and, without quoting anyone except for Xyre, and explain to us your reasons for voting Xyre in post 140. Don't use any posts after 140.
The information gained will be worth it, we need it.
Explain to me exactly what information will be gained from lynching the claimed cop D1. Are you that arrogant that you aren't considering the possibility that you are wrong and he is the cop? Consider for a second that he is telling the truth about his role and imagine how terrible of a situation the town will be in if we lose the cop D1 with no investigations.
We will have MORE information by not lynching him. If he's town and manages to live to D2, we have an investigation. If he's scum and manages to live to D2, we get him claiming an investigation on someone. Either way, he's offering himself up as the lynch tomorrow to prove himself. Why not wait and see if he's telling the truth instead of killing him before we get any information?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-[thread=14456]The [Untitled] Avatar and Sig shop![/thread] Avatar from:[thread=25376] [Epic Graphics][/thread]
Meanwhile I will claim. I'm Thorin II Oakenshield, Town Vigilante. I have a one shot ability called "Kill" and my flavor is something about Erebor. Tonight I was not planning on using my shoot or maybe killing scumXyre but I see no problem with being directed except I will never shoot Star, Wessel, Well or Zion cause they are my town reads. I'm obviously not shooting Caex but he's probably scum. Btw this town suck ass for making me claim, after I explained all my reasons for my cryptic play earlier on, how hard is to see Xyre is scum after my case on him?
Thorin is a big name for this game; I don't see a false claim of Thorin being possible, but I also don't know what characters are scum.
I don't know why you're so mad about revealing vig. You still get a shot.
DRey's claim doesn't change my mind about wanting to lynch Caex today.
Why wouldn't they kill you? You're the only claimed PR worth shooting. If you're telling the truth, we have to operate on the assumption that you'll be NKed. It's beneficial to the scum to have you dead ASAP; playing the WIFOM game and leaving you alive is very difficult with low reward.
It looks like you're trying to prime the possibility you'll survive because you're scum. I don't see how a town cop would think he'd survive a cop claim Day 1 and die by Day 3.
Doc protect would keep him from dying, redirector used on whoever makes the mafia kill, or a bodyguard blocking the kill would all be ways that he lives to D2 even if the mafia try to kill him. Saying that if he lives he must be scum is false dichotomy. Yes, we should operate on the assumption that the mafia will TRY to kill him, but that's not to say he will BE killed by them. There is no reason to kill him today when we could get more information by lynching him tomorrow.
Explain to me exactly what information will be gained from lynching the claimed cop D1. Are you that arrogant that you aren't considering the possibility that you are wrong and he is the cop? Consider for a second that he is telling the truth about his role and imagine how terrible of a situation the town will be in if we lose the cop D1 with no investigations.
We will have MORE information by not lynching him. If he's town and manages to live to D2, we have an investigation. If he's scum and manages to live to D2, we get him claiming an investigation on someone. Either way, he's offering himself up as the lynch tomorrow to prove himself. Why not wait and see if he's telling the truth instead of killing him before we get any information?
Imagine if there was no scum! Imagine if there was only 1!. I'm not imagining anything because the claim was scummy and his posts haven't helped him being town. If we wait until day 2 and lynch him then its honestly a waste of town resources and time. We need to move on away from the distraction and it will be in the back of our minds the entire time.
Doc protect would keep him from dying, redirector used on whoever makes the mafia kill, or a bodyguard blocking the kill would all be ways that he lives to D2 even if the mafia try to kill him. Saying that if he lives he must be scum is false dichotomy. Yes, we should operate on the assumption that the mafia will TRY to kill him, but that's not to say he will BE killed by them. There is no reason to kill him today when we could get more information by lynching him tomorrow.
It may be easy to claim vig as scum over cop but the way DRey (even though it was still horrible not accepting) was still better than the claim Caex pulled.
(Before someone asks me "why": One-shot vigilante is arguably more WIFOMy still than a cop claim, because it can't be proven unless he kills a member of the mafia. That, coupled with his unwillingness to shoot the aforementioned people, makes me think he will never be confirmed. And a one-shot vig can be faked by a gutsy mafia; hell, I've false-claimed a very similar role before myself as scum. And it's the kind of "nearly vanilla role" that suits a mafia claim; mafia don't generally like claiming vanilla because it feels untenable.
Show me the link of this game where you claimed vig as scum before.
Explain to me how lynching the vig (which is a confirmable town exclusive role) just because you "don't want to be shot" makes a lick of sense from a town POV, also thanks for revealing you know my claim is true, because if you didn't believe on me you would not be afraid of that.
DRey breadcrumbed vig in post 281, but only after a ton of suspicion was on him so null tell, could be scum or town play.
Actually I breadcrumbed quite a bit about this, every time a vig was mentioned I commented something about it, however I was not trying to out myself as the vig so I tried to conceal that fact by saying "the vig should do this or that", it was just me talking to myself.
Explain to me exactly what information will be gained from lynching the claimed cop D1. Are you that arrogant that you aren't considering the possibility that you are wrong and he is the cop? Consider for a second that he is telling the truth about his role and imagine how terrible of a situation the town will be in if we lose the cop D1 with no investigations.
We will have MORE information by not lynching him. If he's town and manages to live to D2, we have an investigation. If he's scum and manages to live to D2, we get him claiming an investigation on someone. Either way, he's offering himself up as the lynch tomorrow to prove himself. Why not wait and see if he's telling the truth instead of killing him before we get any information?
Forget it Well, this guy is hopeless, I've tried to explain in detail why viging the "cop" is 100% bad play and he still haven't understood so I doubt he ever will.
@DRey Okay, how about this: Don't respond to my most recent post right away. Take a single post and, without quoting anyone except for Xyre, and explain to us your reasons for voting Xyre in post 140. Don't use any posts after 140.
Good idea. I will show you my reasons now.
This is not a Xyre quote, but it needs to be cited because it caught my attention early on. Me, Xyre and Caex had just played a game, called Ataghan. In that game Xyre was very bloodthirsty, aggressive and mostly created cases on meta. Xyre started the game exactly the way he played Ataghan. Everyone knows Xyre is not a new player so it's perfectly easy for him to replicate his most recent "town" game considering people from there were also in this game, so to me that was null but I could see a newbie considering Xyre's behavior here a town tell. Caex stance on the other hand makes no sense, he knows Xyre scumhunts like that, so what's the reason he could possibly have to consider Xyre's town behavior a scum behavior? The answer is inside information.
This and this are very important posts. First he doesn't acknowledge Zion's posts were incredibly townie, and then want him to quickly claim when the opposite play back there was to remove his vote. It's also of note that it was really early in the game and I think Zion still had some RVS votes for him back there. But the most important thing is his mindset. Until back there Xyre has been pushing for my lynch (he even asked me to claim), pushing and pushing and pushing for me. He never relented about that like ever (he's still voting me) and back there who was my biggest scumread? Yeah, you got it right, I was pushing very hard for Zion's lynch. So Xyre both believed strongly I was scum and believed my main case was also on scum (how this makes any sense?) coincidentally when he noticed Zion was on L-3. The truth is the whole Xyre's behavior was shifty and he moved from his biggest scumread to the biggest scumread of his scumread in a whim, this is not town play.
Here and here we see him trying to reinforce the fact he's playing his town game here, self meta ftw.
Here I noticed the I was correct in my suspicion. Xyre is well aware of his scum and town metas and was probably trying to trick me. First he start with his feigned "bitting my tongue" to show he's angry about the game then he says "I don't get angry as scum so I'm town" the first sentence is correct and I know because I was the one that told him this after comparing his town game in Seasons and his scum game in Kitteh Trek (we were scum together). The diff was night and day, but since he's aware of it it looks like he was trying to replicate his town play on purpose, probably to fool me cause I'm the only one that knows it.
Look at those arguments, "third vote on a wagon", "coaching" those are the dumbest are more weak arguments ever. Everytime I see someone trying to accuse someone of coaching I puke. Has anyone really ever coached a scumbuddy in broad daylight ever? Scum coach themselves at night not at day, scum wants to avoid linking themselves up not the opposite. It's also a lie btw, I don't remember coaching being mentioned in Ataghan.
Now Well do you have the guts to say I didn't have reasons to vote Xyre back there? Because if that plus the other cases I've made about Xyre (that he completely ignored) aren't enough to convince you Xyre is scum I don't know what it is.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The game is not being dumbed down. Control is doing fine; Draw-Go is not the only kind of control. Aggro is doing fine; Red Deck Wins is not the only kind of aggro. Creature combat is an important core concept and belongs in every color. Mythic rarity is not destroying the game. People whine too much for no good reason. Magic is more popular than ever, so keep calm, brew some decks and play some damn cards.
Actually I breadcrumbed quite a bit about this, every time a vig was mentioned I commented something about it, however I was not trying to out myself as the vig so I tried to conceal that fact by saying "the vig should do this or that", it was just me talking to myself.
When multiple players in thread are conjecturing about what a vig should do, you talking about it isn't breadcrumbing. By that logic, every person who commented on anything vig related is breadcrumbing.
Wat? How is a vig an easy false claim for scum? I've never in my whole life seen scum claim vig, it makes no sense.
Because if the town calls on them to kill someone, they actually have the ability to do so. I would claim vig quite a lot in IRC to live into D2/3 and win as mafia.
Forget it Well, this guy is hopeless, I've tried to explain in detail why viging the "cop" is 100% bad play and he still haven't understood so I doubt he ever will.
This is your worst misrepresentation yet. You are quoting a post where I'm talking about how we should NOT kill the cop, and you're accusing me of saying that we should vig the cop. Being snarky about it doesn't make you correct. Not to mention that I've specifically stated in thread that I'm against vigging Caex:
I'm not sure if I have explicitly stated this or not, but:
Though I think Caex's play has been terrible, I am against lynching him today or calling the vig to hit him tonight.
Now Well do you have the guts to say I didn't have reasons to vote Xyre back there? Because if that plus the other cases I've made about Xyre (that he completely ignored) aren't enough to convince you Xyre is scum I don't know what it is.
Another misrepresentation. I never said that you didn't have reasons, I said you never stated your reasons. Did I doubt you had them? Of course. That's why I asked for this post.
Feel free to respond to the rest of my other post. You're constantly misrepresenting people and now flinging snarky comments around. I'm a lot more convinced that you're scum.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-[thread=14456]The [Untitled] Avatar and Sig shop![/thread] Avatar from:[thread=25376] [Epic Graphics][/thread]
@Vig yeah because the correct play as vig is to scream "hey everyone, I'm the vig, please roleblock and kill me scum". I'm the vig, I know I can't stay silent while people talk about the me because after I claim people will say "hey, but you never flinched when we talked about the vig, lying scum", I've see this happen before. On the other hand I can't be too open about it or the scum would notice and I would be doomed, it's a fine line to walk.
@misrep1 learn to read, I was talking about Che not you, in fact I was actually barning you there.
@misrep2 You didn't answer my question, ignoring my "misrep" now that you know my reasons what do you think about them? Do you still think my reasons back there weren't good enough?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The game is not being dumbed down. Control is doing fine; Draw-Go is not the only kind of control. Aggro is doing fine; Red Deck Wins is not the only kind of aggro. Creature combat is an important core concept and belongs in every color. Mythic rarity is not destroying the game. People whine too much for no good reason. Magic is more popular than ever, so keep calm, brew some decks and play some damn cards.
Important to notice that being snarky is not a scumtell.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The game is not being dumbed down. Control is doing fine; Draw-Go is not the only kind of control. Aggro is doing fine; Red Deck Wins is not the only kind of aggro. Creature combat is an important core concept and belongs in every color. Mythic rarity is not destroying the game. People whine too much for no good reason. Magic is more popular than ever, so keep calm, brew some decks and play some damn cards.
So DRey, what did you think about kpaca when he said he would vig Caex?
I paid no heed, Kpaca has lied about being the vig as town not once but twice playing with me before.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The game is not being dumbed down. Control is doing fine; Draw-Go is not the only kind of control. Aggro is doing fine; Red Deck Wins is not the only kind of aggro. Creature combat is an important core concept and belongs in every color. Mythic rarity is not destroying the game. People whine too much for no good reason. Magic is more popular than ever, so keep calm, brew some decks and play some damn cards.
That last post gave me pause. DRey genuinely believes I'm scum, and is arrogant or stubborn enough to not reconsider in the face of such overt opposition. I know that feeling all too well.
That last post gave me pause. DRey genuinely believes I'm scum, and is arrogant or stubborn enough to not reconsider in the face of such overt opposition. I know that feeling all too well.
Time for a new reread.
I haven't seen any "overt opposition" from you for his most recent summary.
I will answer this as soon as DRey has given more insight into his reasoning.
But the short answer is yes.
Why did you want to wait for DRey to give more insight if you already had a presumption? (Working from your statement in 67 that DRey's post was more likely from a town mindset, if marginally.)
@Xyre: I asked this before but maybe you read over it, but what was your view on Zionite's posts between sort of post 20 and 80?
It's of little interest (except the vote on CropCircles which I've discussed at length).
Really? I thought those posts were his most townie actually. I can't quite put it to words why I felt that, but it was more instinctively. Perhaps the wording he used. However, you didn't feel that way about it?
If you thought he was posting like a townie between 20 and 80, why did you continue to vote him and cite his post about DRey while failing to comment on those when you reiterated your vote on him in 96?
More later, after StayFocused stops locking me out.
(Endnote: Wessel really likes questions. That makes me nervous. His statements in 161 seem to suggest he truly believes asking questions is productive always, but in general it feels like his posts are heavy on questions and light on deductions & opinions, with an end toward hiding behind seeming engagement. I'll do some research.)
@Vig yeah because the correct play as vig is to scream "hey everyone, I'm the vig, please roleblock and kill me scum". I'm the vig, I know I can't stay silent while people talk about the me because after I claim people will say "hey, but you never flinched when we talked about the vig, lying scum", I've see this happen before. On the other hand I can't be too open about it or the scum would notice and I would be doomed, it's a fine line to walk.
@misrep1 learn to read, I was talking about Che not you, in fact I was actually barning you there.
@misrep2 You didn't answer my question, ignoring my "misrep" now that you know my reasons what do you think about them? Do you still think my reasons back there weren't good enough?
1.)Actually not at all. I don't find breadcrumbing roles to be a particularly town play anyway. In my experience, it's more likely that scum will try to breadcrumb because they are more worried about what everyone else thinks of their claim. I'm not saying you should have kept quiet when we talked about the vig, nor am I saying you should have talked more. I'm saying it's a null tell that you specifically breadcrumbed in that post.
2.) Your use of commas led me to believe that you were talking about me. You never mentioned Che in your post, the only name you mentioned was me. The "this guy is hopeless" inside of commas led me to believe it was more of an aside about me than you talking about Che. Now that you have clarified, I agree with you and rescind my statement.
3.) I'm currently re-reading Xyre. As stated, your reasons for voting Xyre don't look scummy. What I've been arguing this whole time is that previous to this post, you didn't justify in thread your mindset for voting Xyre. If you would have posted this over a hundred posts ago, I would not have taken issue.
That being said, I'm finding your recent responses to be more from a town mindset. My biggest issues with you were you not explaining your original vote on Xyre without retconning and then you refusing to claim. Both of those issues have now been addressed, so I'm going to Unvote: DRey If you are indeed scum, more interactions between you and other players will let us know. If you're town, keep on this trend of actually responding and explaining yourself, and I won't find you as scummy.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-[thread=14456]The [Untitled] Avatar and Sig shop![/thread] Avatar from:[thread=25376] [Epic Graphics][/thread]
@Xyre you are not escaping from me that easily scum. Just because you buddied with Zion and it worked it doesn't mean it will work with me. This is the thing time you've handwaved my cases against you without further explanations. Do you think you can escape the hang after proposing to lynch the vig, because you don't want to die? die die scum. Ah I also noticed that you want to start a wagon on a fifth suspect now, how many claims you expect to extract from town D1 without being caught?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The game is not being dumbed down. Control is doing fine; Draw-Go is not the only kind of control. Aggro is doing fine; Red Deck Wins is not the only kind of aggro. Creature combat is an important core concept and belongs in every color. Mythic rarity is not destroying the game. People whine too much for no good reason. Magic is more popular than ever, so keep calm, brew some decks and play some damn cards.
The game is not being dumbed down. Control is doing fine; Draw-Go is not the only kind of control. Aggro is doing fine; Red Deck Wins is not the only kind of aggro. Creature combat is an important core concept and belongs in every color. Mythic rarity is not destroying the game. People whine too much for no good reason. Magic is more popular than ever, so keep calm, brew some decks and play some damn cards.
That last post gave me pause. DRey genuinely believes I'm scum, and is arrogant or stubborn enough to not reconsider in the face of such overt opposition. I know that feeling all too well.
Time for a new reread.
I haven't seen any "overt opposition" from you for his most recent summary.
I gave up long ago. He doesn't explain anything; he takes things for granted and then takes my confusion as yet more proof of my guilt. But sure, I'll give that long block an in-depth examination.
@Xyre you are not escaping from me that easily scum. Just because you buddied with Zion and it worked it doesn't mean it will work with me. This is the thing time you've handwaved my cases against you without further explanations. Do you think you can escape the hang after proposing to lynch the vig, because you don't want to die? die die scum. Ah I also noticed that you want to start a wagon on a fifth suspect now, how many claims you expect to extract from town D1 without being caught?
(Before someone asks me "why": One-shot vigilante is arguably more WIFOMy still than a cop claim, because it can't be proven unless he kills a member of the mafia. That, coupled with his unwillingness to shoot the aforementioned people, makes me think he will never be confirmed. And a one-shot vig can be faked by a gutsy mafia; hell, I've false-claimed a very similar role before myself as scum. And it's the kind of "nearly vanilla role" that suits a mafia claim; mafia don't generally like claiming vanilla because it feels untenable.
Show me the link of this game where you claimed vig as scum before.
MTGS Mafia Redux the original, five years ago.
This question was what first got me thinking I was all wrong about DRey. Nobody's this interested in getting evidence to prove their innocence; the implication of the question I think is DRey doesn't think this example exists, which is tied up in a deep conviction that I'm scum - too deep to merely be trying to dismantle the wagon on him.
Explain to me how lynching the vig (which is a confirmable town exclusive role) just because you "don't want to be shot" makes a lick of sense from a town POV, also thanks for revealing you know my claim is true, because if you didn't believe on me you would not be afraid of that.
Deep conviction also explains an immunity to irony.
This is not a Xyre quote, but it needs to be cited because it caught my attention early on. Me, Xyre and Caex had just played a game, called Ataghan. In that game Xyre was very bloodthirsty, aggressive and mostly created cases on meta. Xyre started the game exactly the way he played Ataghan. Everyone knows Xyre is not a new player so it's perfectly easy for him to replicate his most recent "town" game considering people from there were also in this game, so to me that was null but I could see a newbie considering Xyre's behavior here a town tell. Caex stance on the other hand makes no sense, he knows Xyre scumhunts like that, so what's the reason he could possibly have to consider Xyre's town behavior a scum behavior? The answer is inside information.
I suppose I deserve a conspiracy theory written about me, after I did one for you. But Caex's weak arguments don't reflect on me. He could just be playing badly - that would seem to be the conclusion drawn via Occam's razor. (Certainly it makes more sense than playing badly and reflexively bussing before page one is done.)
This and this are very important posts. First he doesn't acknowledge Zion's posts were incredibly townie, and then want him to quickly claim when the opposite play back there was to remove his vote.
Begging the Question: This argument depends on me knowing/believing Zionite's posts were town and disregarding them. Only a scum would do such a thing, but DRey assumes that's what I did without proving it. That's classic begging the question.
In addition, it also falls victim to Occam's razor, because it assumes a mindset where the simpler solution is I got caught up in my own conspiratorial analysis.
It's also of note that it was really early in the game and I think Zion still had some RVS votes for him back there. But the most important thing is his mindset. Until back there Xyre has been pushing for my lynch (he even asked me to claim), pushing and pushing and pushing for me. He never relented about that like ever (he's still voting me) and back there who was my biggest scumread? Yeah, you got it right, I was pushing very hard for Zion's lynch. So Xyre both believed strongly I was scum and believed my main case was also on scum (how this makes any sense?) coincidentally when he noticed Zion was on L-3. The truth is the whole Xyre's behavior was shifty and he moved from his biggest scumread to the biggest scumread of his scumread in a whim, this is not town play.
DRey couches this argument in mindset, but he breaks his legs on the landing. He assumes I was playing both sides against each other, which is a reasonable point - if I were scum, that would be a decent way to play, and indeed something I did in Vanilla 2 occasionally - but it all boils down to that fact that I thought both DRey and Zionite were scum, despite the fact that DRey suspected Zionite.
But DRey's overlooking the very point he's made in his first quote, which is that scum have an incentive to throw sludge on each other to distance themselves if one should fall. There's a subtlety to this - you don't want to actually get your buddy killed, but when he does die you want to say "oh, I was with you from the start in suspecting him, you see here". I believed at the time that DRey's suspicion of Zionite was more speech than strength, and my opinion of DRey's particular skillset strengthened this notion (and then there was DRey's kneejerk reversal in opinion of Zionite immediately after I voted and asked for a claim, which also fit the mold).
So DRey's intuiting a greater shiftiness into my unwillingness to believe his claim that somehow you should treat a scum's suspects as town. Which is patently false; as always, you need to consider why they suspected that person and what distinguishes them from other suspects named. He should know that, having apparently read Az's article.
Here and here we see him trying to reinforce the fact he's playing his town game here, self meta ftw.
And this is just a flat scum signal. You have to apply mindset to everything, or at least give some indication that this isn't just me making a self-serving argument as town, to draw such a conclusion. You can't just tack on a "ftw" at the end and dust your hands off.
Here I noticed the I was correct in my suspicion. Xyre is well aware of his scum and town metas and was probably trying to trick me. First he start with his feigned "bitting my tongue" to show he's angry about the game then he says "I don't get angry as scum so I'm town" the first sentence is correct and I know because I was the one that told him this after comparing his town game in Seasons and his scum game in Kitteh Trek (we were scum together). The diff was night and day, but since he's aware of it it looks like he was trying to replicate his town play on purpose, probably to fool me cause I'm the only one that knows it.
Seriously? You think that post doesn't read pissed-off? I was angry! I get angry when people buy into arguments I think are bunk!
This is more "Xyre knows what he's doing so all town tells are secret scum tells" thinking. DRey's proof is no more than assumptions shaped to match his worldview - and he does nothing to tie it to mindset. Even if you buy that I'm savvy enough to write a fake pissed-off post, that's still no more than a null tell unless you prove the mindset could only be that of a scum.
Look at those arguments, "third vote on a wagon", "coaching" those are the dumbest are more weak arguments ever. Everytime I see someone trying to accuse someone of coaching I puke. Has anyone really ever coached a scumbuddy in broad daylight ever? Scum coach themselves at night not at day, scum wants to avoid linking themselves up not the opposite. It's also a lie btw, I don't remember coaching being mentioned in Ataghan.
I love that you play the "self-meta is apparent scum" card and then complain about me citing coaching. I'll tell you this - scum trying to help scum is far more common than people lying about their self meta, empirically.
The "third vote on a wagon" bit was a hypocrisy claim. Zionite voted CropCircles because he put the third vote on him, but turned a blind eye to kpaca putting the third vote on you. Conspiracies aside (the point being that he could have done that because he figured kpaca's vote was a stalking horse, figuratively), the point was that Zionite's claims against CC were trumped-up. In retrospect, I suppose I gave him too much credit - he could have responded differently simply because it was his neck on the line, and he floundered for some way to defend himself. Meh.
(Also, I never talked about coaching in Ataghan, to my knowledge. I recognize I've mixed up those two games on at least one occasion, but not like that.)
And I also note you don't make any comment on my case as a whole - you just peel out two examples of arguments you don't like, then just say they're bad without further analysis of the mindset that went into that case as a whole. Do you smell the conviction on that post? Do you get a sense of how strongly I believed Zionite was scum - the same way you're so convinced I am?
Now Well do you have the guts to say I didn't have reasons to vote Xyre back there? Because if that plus the other cases I've made about Xyre (that he completely ignored) aren't enough to convince you Xyre is scum I don't know what it is.
At that point, someone else had already made a remark on the fact that you said you were very confident Zionite, DRey and kpaca were the scum team. It would be useless to also ask why you were confident since you had already answered that it is because you're cocky. So I didn't see much use in asking a question to which I knew the answer would be 'I'm confident because I'm confident'. Therefore I chose to just make a remark on it in a sarcastic manner.
You're using the word wrong. You're talking about being sardonic, not sarcastic. (I don't feel like getting into a hopeless argument about the true meaning of the quote, so I'll leave well enough alone.)
If you thought he was posting like a townie between 20 and 80, why did you continue to vote him and cite his post about DRey while failing to comment on those when you reiterated your vote on him in 96?
For one precise reason: because I thought he was very townie I wanted to see if people would just tack onto the Zionite wagon despite Zionite playing very townie at that point. That would be an indication of someone being scum and just hopping onto the Zionite wagon without really seeing what was going on. That was what first made me think you are scum. So as for my reason to keep voting Zion, it was because I felt that if I would unvote, other people would unvote, thereby ending the possibility of what I was trying to do.
I'm not buying it. This reads to me like a convoluted justification for reversing yourself on the matter of Zionite.
Let's give the audience some context here. Wessel voted Zionite for the whole DRey thing in post 17. He gave his reasons for that vote in post 25, and reiterated his vote on Zionite (based on the reasons from post 25) in post 96.
According to Wessel, Zionite's posts between 20 and 80 (all of which fell before Wessel reiterated his vote on Zionite) were overtly town. Despite that, Wessel continued to vote Zionite - ostensibly to lay a trap. But there's no mention of any such trap in any of his posts around that time, nor does he even make a comment to the effect that Zionite's posts sounded townie around that time either to the best of my knowledge.
This point also doesn't jive with the fact that Wessel didn't cite any of my arguments about Zionite when he voted me in 112 - he just barned DRey's feeling that I wasn't scumhunting. If he was indeed laying a trap, he'd have likely applied some element of that reasoning, more than these soft questions about 20-80 in later posts.
These factors lead me to believe this explanation that it was a trap is disingenuous at best. Either Wessel is mixing up his motives, or he's fronting.
Hey DRey. Imagine you are Caex. Say you are town, and have been truthful the whole time. Would you rather give yourself up and be lynched (because according to your theory he will die during the night anyway), or would you do everything to get someone else lynched, potentially a power role? (In other words, save your skin.)
Yes because the best way for a trap to work is to tell everyone about it. I wanted to continue the trap as long as it was viable.
You have to understand my skepticism, though, when you defend your behavior by citing a trap you never sprung and indeed never mentioned before I asked.
Plus there's the fact that springing the trap would have beckoned exactly the skepticism I'm showing you now - because anyone you trapped would have said, "well you were voting him too - are you saying that vote was a lie?" And as soon as you confirmed that, guess how valid your trap would be?
And that's not even considering the fact that the rest of the game, you've by and large just been asking people questions! Passive play. It makes this one claimed instance of laying a trap feel like an outlier.
All this makes me think it's more likely this trap is an excuse. It just feels like an average townie wouldn't try to set up something this elaborate for such marginal, hypothetical gains. Again, it just feels more likely you're trying to come up with some explanation for your contradictory positions and creating an even bigger mess. And if we're talking about which alignment's mindset is more likely to try to reconcile its contradictions rather than admit a mistake...
I voted you because I had a suspicious feeling with your play. That had largely to do with what I felt was a disconnect from you with the game which is often resultant of being scum. Particularly the lack of active investigating I found jarring. The fact I didn't list my question (re: posts 20-80) immediately but only in the following post was because I didn't feel like doing it in the voting post yet. Now your answers to my question were good, but overall inconclusive to me.
But the fact that you put off asking that question suggested the answer to that question had no bearing on whether I deserved a vote, right? Much in the same way you didn't unvote after you didn't get more evidence from my answers.
So the point remains - you had an opportunity to cite the trap, and you didn't. Why not?
This is an argumentum ad ignorantiam. Just because I haven't announced beforehand that I was keeping my vote on Zionite to see who would continue voting him, doesn't mean I'm therefore disingenuous.
If you can provide any proof beyond "trust me, this was why I did this", I'd love to hear it. Because it's only argumentum ad ignorantiam if I'm only looking at part of the evidence.
And a police officer ignoring a criminal who says he didn't commit a crime isn't committing argumentum ad ignorantiam. He'd only be doing so if he took a limited set of evidence not proving his innocence as a sign of guilt. So what evidence am I missing?
That is why I ask questions. To see if I can gauge why someone said something. To gauge the honesty, to gauge the likelihood a townie would act that particular way.
Well, now that gives me a baseline by which I can consider the questions you ask. Thank you. I'll go look over your posts again to see if you're living up to that standard.
But I'll ask you first: do you feel like the questions you've asked by and large have served a worthwhile purpose?
I'm pretty confident on some of my reads now, some of which I keep to myself just yet because there's no reason for me to talk about it yet.
Why not? I can't think of any reason why reads shouldn't be at least mentioned. If you have something to contribute, I'd love to hear it - and hearing those reads would give me a better chance to judge your earnestness.
See my answer above. That was what I was trying to do.
Che's point was that a common scum tactic is to ask dead questions to look like he's being investigative? (This was something DRey did early Day 1 in Seasons, which actually fooled me for a while.)
So you think your questions have been beneficial and active? Would you mind citing some beneficial (from your view) results you've received?
Caex claimed to be cop. If he really is a cop, I would expect him to be actively trying to see who would be good investigation targets. However, if he's scum and falseclaimed, I would expect him to either say something like 'Why would you ask this!?!', or illogical targets, or feign a good answer. It was a question more to see if he was scum rather than to see if he was town.
That doesn't make sense. You do realize, if he claimed whom he'd investigate (assuming he's telling the truth about being the cop), the mafia could just shoot his target? Not only would that make his results worthless, but it would likely doom Caex, because he'd be helpless to the correct observation that he could have used the "convenient" death of his target to hide his lack of a true investigative role if he were scum.
I can't tell if that problem with your original question never occurred to you, or you're trying to defend Caex by lobbing a softball, so to speak.
Specifically, in Basic #66 Haruhi Suzumiya, scumDRey made the observation 'If I was town in the same position of you I would have voted myself'. The situation isn't completely the same, but what I was trying to see is whether DRey would make the same logical fallacy or not.
That's quite a connective stretch, if you'll pardon me saying so. You really thought that would give a useful result?
Two main reasons basically. First of all I feel his posts are coming from a townie under pressure mindset.
Could you cite some examples?
Secondly, and more importantly, no scum would ever claim to be an unprotectable cop.
Why? Because he wouldn't draw the doc's attention, you mean?
Also, if he was lying about being a cop and not the 'unroleblockable and unprotectable' part, I don't see why a mafioso would have a role which gives him immunity from protection. I mean, if there's a mafia doc, I don't see why Asian would then also make one mafia unprotectable. That's just bad role setup.
I can think of one way that would work - if Caex is the mafia doc.
So unless Caex made a brilliant falseclaim claiming to be unprotectable when he isn't (which is illogical since a scum falseclaiming cop would LOVE to be protected), I find it much more likely that there's some town protection role and that Caex is town.
The problem with this dense setup analysis is it falls to WIFOM. Even if Caex is town, the mafia have an advantage to leaving him alive tactically, because his results are only trustworthy once (a) he catches a scum, or (b) he dies. WoLG suggested leaving him alive until Day 3, at which point he'll have two results, but we won't be able to trust those results if he's alive - and if we haven't lynched a scum by that point, we lose as soon as we move to kill him to confirm his results!
So we need to kill him sooner. So what happens if he comes back tomorrow with a town result? We could kill him then and still have one lynch remaining (again, if we lynch a townie today), but for what - confirming one townie? What a waste.
The fact of the matter is that Caex is only worthwhile if (a) we lynch a mafia member today instead of him or (b) he comes back with a scum result tomorrow. Which is, what, a 3/10 shot on the latter - if he doesn't get caught up in this crossfire from today? That's not the worst thing ever, but that's not great, and if he fails, we're basically screwed because we'll need to kill him to get anywhere. So he can't ever be trusted successfully.
So what does that leave? A dodgy player with a dodgy claim.
Actually, now that I think of it, WOLG, could you explain your reasoning behind the "leave Caex alive a few days" bit, in the context of the above?
Well, I expected him to say what he said-namely that he wasn't interested in it. But I'd have been impressed if he had given a watertight answer which would have been a very pro-town answer. Or, if he'd just given some answer that could come from a town mindset. I am still to ask him a follow-up question regarding it (which I will do now at the bottom of this post) but was slightly postponed due to other questions I had to answer.
So you made a post that was almost certainly not going to produce anything of value? On the off chance that it might? Is that what you're saying you're up to?
Rather than asking this question, can you just ask me the question you're leading up to? Then I'll answer it.
Not "play scummier". Play more aggressively and without a lot of regard for how I'm perceived. And yes, I do think being a cop makes me more resistant to lynching.
A few things:
1. You said earlier that you were interested in voting the biggest wagon.
2. You said your plan was to be roleblocked. Why wouldn't they just kill you instead?
3. If your claim was a contingency plan in the case suspicion fell on you, why the lines of "you'll feel stupid if this keeps up"?
Quote from Caex »
1. Because the biggest wagon was Zionite. I said I was interested in voting Zionite.
2. Because if I came back D2 and said "Sorry guys, no result because of roleblock" there was a pretty good chance I'd be lynched. They could 2-for-1 the town by getting in a NK on a stronger player and blocking me. I was trying to get off at least one investigation before I die.
3. Because I didn't want to claim. As you said it was a contingency plan, not Plan A. I was trying to drop a hint that I had a PR.
1. Clarification: you said you were interested in voting Zionite because he was the biggest wagon. What relation does that have to you thinking he's scum?
2. Alright.
3. Why wouldn't that just get you killed?
1. Did you actually look at the context of that? Here's how it went: I said I'd vote Zionite, Xyre, or Stardust. Stardust came back and said "So you're saying you'll vote the biggest wagon, your own personal suspect, or a newbie". I responded with "Yes I'll vote the biggest wagon because he's scummy" referencing Zionite. I never said I would vote him just because he was the biggest wagon.
3. I'd rather hint that I have a power role and leave the scum guessing than actually be forced to claim it and confirm it. Besides which, why would they kill me when I was under a lot of suspicion at that point and they could get me mislynched?
So unless Caex made a brilliant falseclaim claiming to be unprotectable when he isn't (which is illogical since a scum falseclaiming cop would LOVE to be protected), I find it much more likely that there's some town protection role and that Caex is town.
The problem with this dense setup analysis is it falls to WIFOM. Even if Caex is town, the mafia have an advantage to leaving him alive tactically, because his results are only trustworthy once (a) he catches a scum, or (b) he dies. WoLG suggested leaving him alive until Day 3, at which point he'll have two results, but we won't be able to trust those results if he's alive - and if we haven't lynched a scum by that point, we lose as soon as we move to kill him to confirm his results!
So we need to kill him sooner. So what happens if he comes back tomorrow with a town result? We could kill him then and still have one lynch remaining (again, if we lynch a townie today), but for what - confirming one townie? What a waste.
The fact of the matter is that Caex is only worthwhile if (a) we lynch a mafia member today instead of him or (b) he comes back with a scum result tomorrow. Which is, what, a 3/10 shot on the latter - if he doesn't get caught up in this crossfire from today? That's not the worst thing ever, but that's not great, and if he fails, we're basically screwed because we'll need to kill him to get anywhere. So he can't ever be trusted successfully.
So what does that leave? A dodgy player with a dodgy claim.
Actually, now that I think of it, WOLG, could you explain your reasoning behind the "leave Caex alive a few days" bit, in the context of the above?
What happened to not trusting me enough to let me live? Because the bolded parts sure make it seem like you know I'm town.
Everything scares me... kitties scare me... squirrels scare me... corpses....corpses bring forth a pletora of confusing feeling which i prefer not to dwell on...:p
I think you're scum, Caex. I was trying to dismantle the logic that you're worth keeping alive in case you are town in order to benefit from your investigations by emphasizing that even if you are town, we won't benefit from your results, so you're just a scummy player with a dodgy claim.
Imagine if there was no scum! Imagine if there was only 1!. I'm not imagining anything because the claim was scummy and his posts haven't helped him being town. If we wait until day 2 and lynch him then its honestly a waste of town resources and time. We need to move on away from the distraction and it will be in the back of our minds the entire time.
That's terrible reasoning. Lynch the uncounterclaimed cop because otherwise it'll be a "distraction"?
This question was what first got me thinking I was all wrong about DRey. Nobody's this interested in getting evidence to prove their innocence; the implication of the question I think is DRey doesn't think this example exists, which is tied up in a deep conviction that I'm scum - too deep to merely be trying to dismantle the wagon on him.
What's that even supposed to mean? Assuming DRey doesn't think this example exists, why wouldn't he be interested in getting that evidence to "prove his innocence"?
1. Did you actually look at the context of that? Here's how it went: I said I'd vote Zionite, Xyre, or Stardust. Stardust came back and said "So you're saying you'll vote the biggest wagon, your own personal suspect, or a newbie". I responded with "Yes I'll vote the biggest wagon because he's scummy" referencing Zionite. I never said I would vote him just because he was the biggest wagon.
I'm saying I will happily vote the biggest wagon (when the RVS votes are gone). He's the biggest wagon for a reason, you know. Pardon me if I'm interested in voting for scummy players.
I suppose I can see where that line of logic shows.
3. I'd rather hint that I have a power role and leave the scum guessing than actually be forced to claim it and confirm it. Besides which, why would they kill me when I was under a lot of suspicion at that point and they could get me mislynched?
That's not the question. Why wouldn't your overt "hints" that you were a PR just get you killed?
Let's say the suspicion falls off. Why wouldn't the scum just kill you, since you ever so nicely pointed out that you were a PR?
Thorin is a big name for this game; I don't see a false claim of Thorin being possible, but I also don't know what characters are scum.
I'd like to know how you got that, given that you falseclaimed the main female character in another game (Legend of Aang).
I was given that false claim by the host. I can't assume that false claims have been handed out this game until I see something to make me believe otherwise.
Hey guys. Just checking in quickly since I'm home from my vacation. My son is pretty sick, so I just had time for a quick skim to see what's up. I'll get a proper read done in the next couple days. From what I've seen, DRey is confusing me and Xyre has raised a couple red flags for me, mostly because he really wants to kill the claimed cop. I don't get that, so it worries me. Anyway, hopefully I can get all that sorted in my own head when I have more time to think on this. Sorry for the delay.
The problem with this dense setup analysis is it falls to WIFOM. Even if Caex is town, the mafia have an advantage to leaving him alive tactically, because his results are only trustworthy once (a) he catches a scum, or (b) he dies. WoLG suggested leaving him alive until Day 3, at which point he'll have two results, but we won't be able to trust those results if he's alive - and if we haven't lynched a scum by that point, we lose as soon as we move to kill him to confirm his results!
The "another night" from post 300 is the only thing I could see you misconstruing as me stating that, but it should have read "tonight," and in context, to me at least, it was obviously referring to N1. My logic is geared towards not lynching him today or having a vig shoot him tonight. He offered himself up as the lynch tomorrow to prove his result, so I'm saying we deal with him tomorrow when we have more information at hand.
If we lynch him today and he's town, it provides us with nothing. If we lynch him tomorrow and he's town, it provides us with the clearing of another player.
If we lynch him today and he's scum, good for us. If we lynch him tomorrow and he's scum, the real cop will have had the chance to clear another player.
Regardless of how much conviction you have that he's lying, we gain absolutely nothing from lynching him today.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-[thread=14456]The [Untitled] Avatar and Sig shop![/thread] Avatar from:[thread=25376] [Epic Graphics][/thread]
If Caex is out of the question, then I ask DRey to claim to stimulate discussion.
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
That being said:
I don't think a confused townie would be trying to out other power roles just because their main suspect claimed one. If you're afraid of lynching a possible cop, why try to draw out another PR so they can be nightkilled?
In my experience, waffling is something scum do in order to try and look like they were on the right side of history, not a townie conjecturing in thread. Changing your mind on an opinion is one thing, listing multiple competing opinions in another.
Before you talk about misrepresentations, read what you're quoting, and follow the interaction back. You kept stating that you had reasons for suspecting Xyre, but at this point YOU NEVER TOLD ANYONE ELSE WHAT THEY WERE AND YOU STILL HAVEN'T. Not telling your reasons = not defending your statements. Saying "Oh guys trust me I totally have a reason" is not a defense or an actual response.
Not to me it's not. If someone is playing scummy, I'm going to call them out on it and attack them regardless if they "do it all the time." You refusing to explain yourself is anti-town, period. Admitting that your play is not pro-town makes you look worse to me because that means you know what you're doing is wrong.
Ok...so how does skipping over a large portion of the posts in the game at this point help you catch anyone "saying things they don't believe themselves?" CITE SPECIFIC EXAMPLES OF WHERE YOU THINK XYRE IS SCUM. You continuously saying "Oh he's scum guys plz believe me" isn't going to convince anyone. Especially when we are asking you for what your reasoning is and YOU ARE REFUSING TO EXPLAIN IT.
I just took a few days off in order to calm down. A re-read in a better state of mind has not helped make me understand your play at all.
If you know your play is going to get people asking for clarification and voting you, why would you not also have learned that you should clarify what people are asking about? Apparently you haven't learned that, because you are continuing to ignore what is being questioned.
The rest of his posts from then until now paint him in an even worse light because he is flailing, misrepresenting, and refusing to claim when asked while being voted.
DRey A majority of the town is voting you, stating suspicion of you, and/or asking you to claim. Refusing to do so is anti-town play. Also, I think it's really ironic that you of all people are asking others to defend their vote on you when you've been refusing to do the same thing.
-[thread=14456]The [Untitled] Avatar and Sig shop![/thread] Avatar from:[thread=25376] [Epic Graphics][/thread]
Awards:
Elegant Mafia: The Joker, Mafia MVP
I'll spell out why I don't think it's a good idea:
-The scum have to kill me tonight. But if you call the vig shot, they are free to NK a stronger player and get two kills for the price of one.
-If they don't kill me, I'll have an investigation result. In that case, I can offer myself up as the D2 lynch to confirm said result.
I'm not living to D3 no matter how this game plays out. We should use me to put the scum in a position where they're forced to dance to the town's tune.
{Magic: The RPG}
I just figure there's more information to be had if we lynch DRey and vig you, because the mafia don't know if we have a vig or not and have to guess. Whatever they do, we learn something about them (particularly in the context of your alignment, after your death).
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Non-Staff Quasi-ModWhatever happened to your suspicion? The only thing that you described as changing was "genuine analysis of Caex", which only really applies to "throwing suspicion on your attackers".
1. Clarification: you said you were interested in voting Zionite because he was the biggest wagon. What relation does that have to you thinking he's scum?
2. Alright.
3. Why wouldn't that just get you killed?
So what happened to the logic here:
Any reason for that to change?
---
Consider another ghost-vote on DRey.
Why wouldn't they kill you? You're the only claimed PR worth shooting. If you're telling the truth, we have to operate on the assumption that you'll be NKed. It's beneficial to the scum to have you dead ASAP; playing the WIFOM game and leaving you alive is very difficult with low reward.
It looks like you're trying to prime the possibility you'll survive because you're scum. I don't see how a town cop would think he'd survive a cop claim Day 1 and die by Day 3.
Your last sentence definitely doesn't sound like it's coming from a townie.
In this case, one of two things will happen tonight. I'll die or I'll live. I see no reason to only plan for one of them when we can plan for both just as easily.
{Magic: The RPG}
If you are alive after the night I'm voting you still. But please make up who you supposedly cop'd because it will be fun figuring out if you say one of your buddies is town or if you try and convict a strong townie.
That's 2 ghost votes DRey, now claim like a good boy townie.
Though I think Caex's play has been terrible, I am against lynching him today or calling the vig to hit him tonight.
-[thread=14456]The [Untitled] Avatar and Sig shop![/thread] Avatar from:[thread=25376] [Epic Graphics][/thread]
Awards:
Elegant Mafia: The Joker, Mafia MVP
@Caex, hey you forgot about this
I don't have time right now but I will acknowledge Well's bad post later.
Meanwhile I will claim. I'm Thorin II Oakenshield, Town Vigilante. I have a one shot ability called "Kill" and my flavor is something about Erebor. Tonight I was not planning on using my shoot or maybe killing scumXyre but I see no problem with being directed except I will never shoot Star, Wessel, Well or Zion cause they are my town reads. I'm obviously not shooting Caex but he's probably scum. Btw this town suck ass for making me claim, after I explained all my reasons for my cryptic play earlier on, how hard is to see Xyre is scum after my case on him?
@Wessel, actually I refused to claim in MGM. In fact from the top of my head: as town I've refused to claim in MGM, King Artur, Athagan, Eeevolution, Modern Family and maybe super mario world. There's probably more.
Mythic rarity is not destroying the game. People whine too much for no good reason. Magic is more popular than ever, so keep calm, brew some decks and play some damn cards.
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
Ahhhh.... this is so bad
The information gained will be worth it, we need it.
Unvote
I believe DRey's claim over Caex's, but please don't be ignorant and not listen to the towns request and just shoot who you think it best.
This is interesting now. Let DRey shoot Caex or lynch him? I don't know if I would trust DRey to even listen to the town and shoot Caex.
What the ****?
And, of course, I don't want to be shot.)
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
At this point, I believe he is lying. 1 shot vig is an easy false claim for the mafia to make, and his play has not been pro-town.
@DRey Okay, how about this: Don't respond to my most recent post right away. Take a single post and, without quoting anyone except for Xyre, and explain to us your reasons for voting Xyre in post 140. Don't use any posts after 140.
Explain to me exactly what information will be gained from lynching the claimed cop D1. Are you that arrogant that you aren't considering the possibility that you are wrong and he is the cop? Consider for a second that he is telling the truth about his role and imagine how terrible of a situation the town will be in if we lose the cop D1 with no investigations.
We will have MORE information by not lynching him. If he's town and manages to live to D2, we have an investigation. If he's scum and manages to live to D2, we get him claiming an investigation on someone. Either way, he's offering himself up as the lynch tomorrow to prove himself. Why not wait and see if he's telling the truth instead of killing him before we get any information?
-[thread=14456]The [Untitled] Avatar and Sig shop![/thread] Avatar from:[thread=25376] [Epic Graphics][/thread]
Awards:
Elegant Mafia: The Joker, Mafia MVP
Thorin is a big name for this game; I don't see a false claim of Thorin being possible, but I also don't know what characters are scum.
I don't know why you're so mad about revealing vig. You still get a shot.
DRey's claim doesn't change my mind about wanting to lynch Caex today.
Doc protect would keep him from dying, redirector used on whoever makes the mafia kill, or a bodyguard blocking the kill would all be ways that he lives to D2 even if the mafia try to kill him. Saying that if he lives he must be scum is false dichotomy. Yes, we should operate on the assumption that the mafia will TRY to kill him, but that's not to say he will BE killed by them. There is no reason to kill him today when we could get more information by lynching him tomorrow.
Not if we lynch him for being scum?
-[thread=14456]The [Untitled] Avatar and Sig shop![/thread] Avatar from:[thread=25376] [Epic Graphics][/thread]
Awards:
Elegant Mafia: The Joker, Mafia MVP
Imagine if there was no scum! Imagine if there was only 1!. I'm not imagining anything because the claim was scummy and his posts haven't helped him being town. If we wait until day 2 and lynch him then its honestly a waste of town resources and time. We need to move on away from the distraction and it will be in the back of our minds the entire time.
WIFOM.
Explain to me how lynching the vig (which is a confirmable town exclusive role) just because you "don't want to be shot" makes a lick of sense from a town POV, also thanks for revealing you know my claim is true, because if you didn't believe on me you would not be afraid of that.
Actually I breadcrumbed quite a bit about this, every time a vig was mentioned I commented something about it, however I was not trying to out myself as the vig so I tried to conceal that fact by saying "the vig should do this or that", it was just me talking to myself.
Wat? How is a vig an easy false claim for scum? I've never in my whole life seen scum claim vig, it makes no sense.
Forget it Well, this guy is hopeless, I've tried to explain in detail why viging the "cop" is 100% bad play and he still haven't understood so I doubt he ever will.
Good idea. I will show you my reasons now.
This is not a Xyre quote, but it needs to be cited because it caught my attention early on. Me, Xyre and Caex had just played a game, called Ataghan. In that game Xyre was very bloodthirsty, aggressive and mostly created cases on meta. Xyre started the game exactly the way he played Ataghan. Everyone knows Xyre is not a new player so it's perfectly easy for him to replicate his most recent "town" game considering people from there were also in this game, so to me that was null but I could see a newbie considering Xyre's behavior here a town tell. Caex stance on the other hand makes no sense, he knows Xyre scumhunts like that, so what's the reason he could possibly have to consider Xyre's town behavior a scum behavior? The answer is inside information.
This and this are very important posts. First he doesn't acknowledge Zion's posts were incredibly townie, and then want him to quickly claim when the opposite play back there was to remove his vote. It's also of note that it was really early in the game and I think Zion still had some RVS votes for him back there. But the most important thing is his mindset. Until back there Xyre has been pushing for my lynch (he even asked me to claim), pushing and pushing and pushing for me. He never relented about that like ever (he's still voting me) and back there who was my biggest scumread? Yeah, you got it right, I was pushing very hard for Zion's lynch. So Xyre both believed strongly I was scum and believed my main case was also on scum (how this makes any sense?) coincidentally when he noticed Zion was on L-3. The truth is the whole Xyre's behavior was shifty and he moved from his biggest scumread to the biggest scumread of his scumread in a whim, this is not town play.
Here and here we see him trying to reinforce the fact he's playing his town game here, self meta ftw.
Here I noticed the I was correct in my suspicion. Xyre is well aware of his scum and town metas and was probably trying to trick me. First he start with his feigned "bitting my tongue" to show he's angry about the game then he says "I don't get angry as scum so I'm town" the first sentence is correct and I know because I was the one that told him this after comparing his town game in Seasons and his scum game in Kitteh Trek (we were scum together). The diff was night and day, but since he's aware of it it looks like he was trying to replicate his town play on purpose, probably to fool me cause I'm the only one that knows it.
Look at those arguments, "third vote on a wagon", "coaching" those are the dumbest are more weak arguments ever. Everytime I see someone trying to accuse someone of coaching I puke. Has anyone really ever coached a scumbuddy in broad daylight ever? Scum coach themselves at night not at day, scum wants to avoid linking themselves up not the opposite. It's also a lie btw, I don't remember coaching being mentioned in Ataghan.
Now Well do you have the guts to say I didn't have reasons to vote Xyre back there? Because if that plus the other cases I've made about Xyre (that he completely ignored) aren't enough to convince you Xyre is scum I don't know what it is.
Mythic rarity is not destroying the game. People whine too much for no good reason. Magic is more popular than ever, so keep calm, brew some decks and play some damn cards.
re: a comment in DRey's last post: I just watched Az plainsight coach his scumbuddy Zionite on D2 of Cyberspace Mafia, so it does happen.
"...a talisman against all evil, so long as you obey me."
When multiple players in thread are conjecturing about what a vig should do, you talking about it isn't breadcrumbing. By that logic, every person who commented on anything vig related is breadcrumbing.
Because if the town calls on them to kill someone, they actually have the ability to do so. I would claim vig quite a lot in IRC to live into D2/3 and win as mafia.
This is your worst misrepresentation yet. You are quoting a post where I'm talking about how we should NOT kill the cop, and you're accusing me of saying that we should vig the cop. Being snarky about it doesn't make you correct. Not to mention that I've specifically stated in thread that I'm against vigging Caex:
Another misrepresentation. I never said that you didn't have reasons, I said you never stated your reasons. Did I doubt you had them? Of course. That's why I asked for this post.
Feel free to respond to the rest of my other post. You're constantly misrepresenting people and now flinging snarky comments around. I'm a lot more convinced that you're scum.
-[thread=14456]The [Untitled] Avatar and Sig shop![/thread] Avatar from:[thread=25376] [Epic Graphics][/thread]
Awards:
Elegant Mafia: The Joker, Mafia MVP
@misrep1 learn to read, I was talking about Che not you, in fact I was actually barning you there.
@misrep2 You didn't answer my question, ignoring my "misrep" now that you know my reasons what do you think about them? Do you still think my reasons back there weren't good enough?
Mythic rarity is not destroying the game. People whine too much for no good reason. Magic is more popular than ever, so keep calm, brew some decks and play some damn cards.
Mythic rarity is not destroying the game. People whine too much for no good reason. Magic is more popular than ever, so keep calm, brew some decks and play some damn cards.
Mythic rarity is not destroying the game. People whine too much for no good reason. Magic is more popular than ever, so keep calm, brew some decks and play some damn cards.
Says the guy who took my "I don't want to get shot" remark and ran with it for a mile.
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
Unvote
That last post gave me pause. DRey genuinely believes I'm scum, and is arrogant or stubborn enough to not reconsider in the face of such overt opposition. I know that feeling all too well.
Time for a new reread.
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
I haven't seen any "overt opposition" from you for his most recent summary.
Why did you want to wait for DRey to give more insight if you already had a presumption? (Working from your statement in 67 that DRey's post was more likely from a town mindset, if marginally.)
What was your intention in this question?
Explain.
Why?
What was your purpose in this exchange?
If you thought he was posting like a townie between 20 and 80, why did you continue to vote him and cite his post about DRey while failing to comment on those when you reiterated your vote on him in 96?
More later, after StayFocused stops locking me out.
(Endnote: Wessel really likes questions. That makes me nervous. His statements in 161 seem to suggest he truly believes asking questions is productive always, but in general it feels like his posts are heavy on questions and light on deductions & opinions, with an end toward hiding behind seeming engagement. I'll do some research.)
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
1.)Actually not at all. I don't find breadcrumbing roles to be a particularly town play anyway. In my experience, it's more likely that scum will try to breadcrumb because they are more worried about what everyone else thinks of their claim. I'm not saying you should have kept quiet when we talked about the vig, nor am I saying you should have talked more. I'm saying it's a null tell that you specifically breadcrumbed in that post.
2.) Your use of commas led me to believe that you were talking about me. You never mentioned Che in your post, the only name you mentioned was me. The "this guy is hopeless" inside of commas led me to believe it was more of an aside about me than you talking about Che. Now that you have clarified, I agree with you and rescind my statement.
3.) I'm currently re-reading Xyre. As stated, your reasons for voting Xyre don't look scummy. What I've been arguing this whole time is that previous to this post, you didn't justify in thread your mindset for voting Xyre. If you would have posted this over a hundred posts ago, I would not have taken issue.
That being said, I'm finding your recent responses to be more from a town mindset. My biggest issues with you were you not explaining your original vote on Xyre without retconning and then you refusing to claim. Both of those issues have now been addressed, so I'm going to Unvote: DRey If you are indeed scum, more interactions between you and other players will let us know. If you're town, keep on this trend of actually responding and explaining yourself, and I won't find you as scummy.
-[thread=14456]The [Untitled] Avatar and Sig shop![/thread] Avatar from:[thread=25376] [Epic Graphics][/thread]
Awards:
Elegant Mafia: The Joker, Mafia MVP
Mythic rarity is not destroying the game. People whine too much for no good reason. Magic is more popular than ever, so keep calm, brew some decks and play some damn cards.
Mythic rarity is not destroying the game. People whine too much for no good reason. Magic is more popular than ever, so keep calm, brew some decks and play some damn cards.
I gave up long ago. He doesn't explain anything; he takes things for granted and then takes my confusion as yet more proof of my guilt. But sure, I'll give that long block an in-depth examination.
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
Seriously, what the ****.
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
MTGS Mafia Redux the original, five years ago.
This question was what first got me thinking I was all wrong about DRey. Nobody's this interested in getting evidence to prove their innocence; the implication of the question I think is DRey doesn't think this example exists, which is tied up in a deep conviction that I'm scum - too deep to merely be trying to dismantle the wagon on him.
Deep conviction also explains an immunity to irony.
I suppose I deserve a conspiracy theory written about me, after I did one for you. But Caex's weak arguments don't reflect on me. He could just be playing badly - that would seem to be the conclusion drawn via Occam's razor. (Certainly it makes more sense than playing badly and reflexively bussing before page one is done.)
Begging the Question: This argument depends on me knowing/believing Zionite's posts were town and disregarding them. Only a scum would do such a thing, but DRey assumes that's what I did without proving it. That's classic begging the question.
In addition, it also falls victim to Occam's razor, because it assumes a mindset where the simpler solution is I got caught up in my own conspiratorial analysis.
DRey couches this argument in mindset, but he breaks his legs on the landing. He assumes I was playing both sides against each other, which is a reasonable point - if I were scum, that would be a decent way to play, and indeed something I did in Vanilla 2 occasionally - but it all boils down to that fact that I thought both DRey and Zionite were scum, despite the fact that DRey suspected Zionite.
But DRey's overlooking the very point he's made in his first quote, which is that scum have an incentive to throw sludge on each other to distance themselves if one should fall. There's a subtlety to this - you don't want to actually get your buddy killed, but when he does die you want to say "oh, I was with you from the start in suspecting him, you see here". I believed at the time that DRey's suspicion of Zionite was more speech than strength, and my opinion of DRey's particular skillset strengthened this notion (and then there was DRey's kneejerk reversal in opinion of Zionite immediately after I voted and asked for a claim, which also fit the mold).
So DRey's intuiting a greater shiftiness into my unwillingness to believe his claim that somehow you should treat a scum's suspects as town. Which is patently false; as always, you need to consider why they suspected that person and what distinguishes them from other suspects named. He should know that, having apparently read Az's article.
And this is just a flat scum signal. You have to apply mindset to everything, or at least give some indication that this isn't just me making a self-serving argument as town, to draw such a conclusion. You can't just tack on a "ftw" at the end and dust your hands off.
Seriously? You think that post doesn't read pissed-off? I was angry! I get angry when people buy into arguments I think are bunk!
This is more "Xyre knows what he's doing so all town tells are secret scum tells" thinking. DRey's proof is no more than assumptions shaped to match his worldview - and he does nothing to tie it to mindset. Even if you buy that I'm savvy enough to write a fake pissed-off post, that's still no more than a null tell unless you prove the mindset could only be that of a scum.
I love that you play the "self-meta is apparent scum" card and then complain about me citing coaching. I'll tell you this - scum trying to help scum is far more common than people lying about their self meta, empirically.
The "third vote on a wagon" bit was a hypocrisy claim. Zionite voted CropCircles because he put the third vote on him, but turned a blind eye to kpaca putting the third vote on you. Conspiracies aside (the point being that he could have done that because he figured kpaca's vote was a stalking horse, figuratively), the point was that Zionite's claims against CC were trumped-up. In retrospect, I suppose I gave him too much credit - he could have responded differently simply because it was his neck on the line, and he floundered for some way to defend himself. Meh.
(Also, I never talked about coaching in Ataghan, to my knowledge. I recognize I've mixed up those two games on at least one occasion, but not like that.)
And I also note you don't make any comment on my case as a whole - you just peel out two examples of arguments you don't like, then just say they're bad without further analysis of the mindset that went into that case as a whole. Do you smell the conviction on that post? Do you get a sense of how strongly I believed Zionite was scum - the same way you're so convinced I am?
Deflection.
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
If I cut it, I either think it's WIFOM or don't think it's useful at the moment.
You're using the word wrong. You're talking about being sardonic, not sarcastic. (I don't feel like getting into a hopeless argument about the true meaning of the quote, so I'll leave well enough alone.)
I'm not buying it. This reads to me like a convoluted justification for reversing yourself on the matter of Zionite.
Let's give the audience some context here. Wessel voted Zionite for the whole DRey thing in post 17. He gave his reasons for that vote in post 25, and reiterated his vote on Zionite (based on the reasons from post 25) in post 96.
According to Wessel, Zionite's posts between 20 and 80 (all of which fell before Wessel reiterated his vote on Zionite) were overtly town. Despite that, Wessel continued to vote Zionite - ostensibly to lay a trap. But there's no mention of any such trap in any of his posts around that time, nor does he even make a comment to the effect that Zionite's posts sounded townie around that time either to the best of my knowledge.
This point also doesn't jive with the fact that Wessel didn't cite any of my arguments about Zionite when he voted me in 112 - he just barned DRey's feeling that I wasn't scumhunting. If he was indeed laying a trap, he'd have likely applied some element of that reasoning, more than these soft questions about 20-80 in later posts.
These factors lead me to believe this explanation that it was a trap is disingenuous at best. Either Wessel is mixing up his motives, or he's fronting.
More examination of Wessel to come shortly.
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
What were you trying to do? (This was from post 223, for context.)
Why ask this?
What was the purpose of this?
Why? Be specific. I don't think you've explained why you think Caex is town yet, despite repeatedly saying so.
What were some possible reactions you expected to this question? What would those reactions have said about DRey?
What's your current opinion of DRey?
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
You have to understand my skepticism, though, when you defend your behavior by citing a trap you never sprung and indeed never mentioned before I asked.
Plus there's the fact that springing the trap would have beckoned exactly the skepticism I'm showing you now - because anyone you trapped would have said, "well you were voting him too - are you saying that vote was a lie?" And as soon as you confirmed that, guess how valid your trap would be?
And that's not even considering the fact that the rest of the game, you've by and large just been asking people questions! Passive play. It makes this one claimed instance of laying a trap feel like an outlier.
All this makes me think it's more likely this trap is an excuse. It just feels like an average townie wouldn't try to set up something this elaborate for such marginal, hypothetical gains. Again, it just feels more likely you're trying to come up with some explanation for your contradictory positions and creating an even bigger mess. And if we're talking about which alignment's mindset is more likely to try to reconcile its contradictions rather than admit a mistake...
But the fact that you put off asking that question suggested the answer to that question had no bearing on whether I deserved a vote, right? Much in the same way you didn't unvote after you didn't get more evidence from my answers.
So the point remains - you had an opportunity to cite the trap, and you didn't. Why not?
If you can provide any proof beyond "trust me, this was why I did this", I'd love to hear it. Because it's only argumentum ad ignorantiam if I'm only looking at part of the evidence.
And a police officer ignoring a criminal who says he didn't commit a crime isn't committing argumentum ad ignorantiam. He'd only be doing so if he took a limited set of evidence not proving his innocence as a sign of guilt. So what evidence am I missing?
Well, now that gives me a baseline by which I can consider the questions you ask. Thank you. I'll go look over your posts again to see if you're living up to that standard.
But I'll ask you first: do you feel like the questions you've asked by and large have served a worthwhile purpose?
Why not? I can't think of any reason why reads shouldn't be at least mentioned. If you have something to contribute, I'd love to hear it - and hearing those reads would give me a better chance to judge your earnestness.
Che's point was that a common scum tactic is to ask dead questions to look like he's being investigative? (This was something DRey did early Day 1 in Seasons, which actually fooled me for a while.)
So you think your questions have been beneficial and active? Would you mind citing some beneficial (from your view) results you've received?
That doesn't make sense. You do realize, if he claimed whom he'd investigate (assuming he's telling the truth about being the cop), the mafia could just shoot his target? Not only would that make his results worthless, but it would likely doom Caex, because he'd be helpless to the correct observation that he could have used the "convenient" death of his target to hide his lack of a true investigative role if he were scum.
I can't tell if that problem with your original question never occurred to you, or you're trying to defend Caex by lobbing a softball, so to speak.
That's quite a connective stretch, if you'll pardon me saying so. You really thought that would give a useful result?
Could you cite some examples?
Why? Because he wouldn't draw the doc's attention, you mean?
I can think of one way that would work - if Caex is the mafia doc.
The problem with this dense setup analysis is it falls to WIFOM. Even if Caex is town, the mafia have an advantage to leaving him alive tactically, because his results are only trustworthy once (a) he catches a scum, or (b) he dies. WoLG suggested leaving him alive until Day 3, at which point he'll have two results, but we won't be able to trust those results if he's alive - and if we haven't lynched a scum by that point, we lose as soon as we move to kill him to confirm his results!
So we need to kill him sooner. So what happens if he comes back tomorrow with a town result? We could kill him then and still have one lynch remaining (again, if we lynch a townie today), but for what - confirming one townie? What a waste.
The fact of the matter is that Caex is only worthwhile if (a) we lynch a mafia member today instead of him or (b) he comes back with a scum result tomorrow. Which is, what, a 3/10 shot on the latter - if he doesn't get caught up in this crossfire from today? That's not the worst thing ever, but that's not great, and if he fails, we're basically screwed because we'll need to kill him to get anywhere. So he can't ever be trusted successfully.
So what does that leave? A dodgy player with a dodgy claim.
Actually, now that I think of it, WOLG, could you explain your reasoning behind the "leave Caex alive a few days" bit, in the context of the above?
So you made a post that was almost certainly not going to produce anything of value? On the off chance that it might? Is that what you're saying you're up to?
No pretexts; I'm just curious.
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
1. Did you actually look at the context of that? Here's how it went: I said I'd vote Zionite, Xyre, or Stardust. Stardust came back and said "So you're saying you'll vote the biggest wagon, your own personal suspect, or a newbie". I responded with "Yes I'll vote the biggest wagon because he's scummy" referencing Zionite. I never said I would vote him just because he was the biggest wagon.
3. I'd rather hint that I have a power role and leave the scum guessing than actually be forced to claim it and confirm it. Besides which, why would they kill me when I was under a lot of suspicion at that point and they could get me mislynched?
What happened to not trusting me enough to let me live? Because the bolded parts sure make it seem like you know I'm town.
{Magic: The RPG}
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Non-Staff Quasi-ModThat's terrible reasoning. Lynch the uncounterclaimed cop because otherwise it'll be a "distraction"?
What's that even supposed to mean? Assuming DRey doesn't think this example exists, why wouldn't he be interested in getting that evidence to "prove his innocence"?
Hm, taking a look at that part:
I suppose I can see where that line of logic shows.
That's not the question. Why wouldn't your overt "hints" that you were a PR just get you killed?
Let's say the suspicion falls off. Why wouldn't the scum just kill you, since you ever so nicely pointed out that you were a PR?
I was given that false claim by the host. I can't assume that false claims have been handed out this game until I see something to make me believe otherwise.
As this is CC's third prod, any further period of V/LA without prior notice will result in his forced replacement.
The "another night" from post 300 is the only thing I could see you misconstruing as me stating that, but it should have read "tonight," and in context, to me at least, it was obviously referring to N1. My logic is geared towards not lynching him today or having a vig shoot him tonight. He offered himself up as the lynch tomorrow to prove his result, so I'm saying we deal with him tomorrow when we have more information at hand.
If we lynch him today and he's town, it provides us with nothing. If we lynch him tomorrow and he's town, it provides us with the clearing of another player.
If we lynch him today and he's scum, good for us. If we lynch him tomorrow and he's scum, the real cop will have had the chance to clear another player.
Regardless of how much conviction you have that he's lying, we gain absolutely nothing from lynching him today.
-[thread=14456]The [Untitled] Avatar and Sig shop![/thread] Avatar from:[thread=25376] [Epic Graphics][/thread]
Awards:
Elegant Mafia: The Joker, Mafia MVP
[The Family]