110: The last part is a puzzler. It's clear that the quoted part (Az's "speed lynch" comment) is sarcastic, on several levels - form, Az's experience level, etc. The question then becomes whether Kraj is also trying to be sarcastic and failing or trying to seriously wagon. Knowing Kraj, I doubt that his vote here was intended to be serious - I can't think anyone would be dense enough to think Az was genuinely pushing a speed-lynch. But why, then, vote? It's effectively sarcastic response combined with genuine action, and is thus disjoint. It's entirely possible Kraj was trying to make a joke at absolutely the wrong time, but I can't shake the notion that he could have just skipped the vote entirely.
It wasn't a joke, it was bandwagoning for the sake of reactions. This is a really bizarre read; why would I lie and admit to bandwagoning if the honest response was that I was joking? All your logic hoops based on sarcasm and joking and whatnot (which makes up the bulk of your first chunk) just don't make sense.
It's interesting that both you and Charm Master have used "speed lynching" to describe Toastboy's wagon. In my admittedly limited experience, the only speed lynches I have ever seen occur were during the endgame of Points where the mafia were using double voters against townies who were -2 to lynch. Outside of that aberration, I have never once seen a player lynched without extracting a claim. Even when someone claims a guilty cop investigation on another player, they are given a chance to respond. The idea that there was a risk of Toastboy getting speedlynched is patently absurd. The only "risk" was putting him in claim range without giving everyone a chance to comment, and even still the likelihood of no one observing the wagon's speed and unvoting before a claim happens is extremely small.
It's one thing to accuse me of hopping on without justification. Fine, that's what I did. It's even reasonable to not believe the claim that I did it to elicit reactions. But no one in his or her right mind and who has played any number of games on this site could possibly believe I was actually hoping TB would just get lynched.
117: I don't understand his reaction to Chris's post. Doesn't respond to anything other than "yeah, so?"
What's puzzling? I bandwagoned for the sake of eliciting reactions. Chris accused me of bandwagoning. I didn't deny it. If I elaborated at that time it would have undermined the reason I did it in the first place.
Second quote: I really hate the "bandwagons are important so I am justified in bandwagoning" justification that always crops up.
And rightly so. Most of the time it's complete B.S. But at the very beginning of the game when there have been zero bandwagons and little of substance to comment on, doing scummy things - whatever they may be - for the sake of eliciting reactions is a totally common thing to do.
furthermore, you dismiss constructive discussion whatsoever with the "there's often little constructive discussion to be had before the first lynch occurs" comment, which is very scummy. Just because Day 1 lynches are sometimes based less on the town's work than on bad scum screwing up doesn't mean there is little constructive discussion or that such discussion is useless. The fact that you assert (implicitly for the latter) both of these makes me very nervous. And there's also the dismissive quality of the latter part. Overall, this part probably deserves a vote, but I'll save that for the end.
Yes, that comment went too far. It's inaccurate to say little constructive discussion happens before the first lynch when there's actually a pretty decent odds of catching scum day 1. Put it back in context, though: CM had just voted me because "early bandwagons are bad". My point was that his assertion was nonsense, which it is.
How was WoD's response vague and unhelpful? He called out Toastboy for using a metagame defense saying it makes him look like he's trying to put on a show of being a helpful townie. I asked why he felt that way about Toastboy but not Azrael, who did the same thing, and his answer was "vibe".
Fifth quote and subsequent: The quote itself isn't really an issue here. I'm more concerned with the non sequitur into the unvote, which feels reactionary and defensive. This is doubly true with Kraj's responses to criticisms, which stand by his bandwagoning. So why unvote, unless one wants to portray a townie (defending his/her actions) while stepping away from the violation? A townie here would go in one direction or the other, much in the same way a townie would provide a straight genuine or straight false reaction to the fake suggestion of a speed lynch. This is the second time, in other words, that Kraj has said one thing and done another, and I theorize that this mixed-approach tactic is a scum tell.
Or, since the primary reason I voted Toastboy was to elicit reactions, there wasn't much reason for me to continue voting him after I elicited reactions.
155: Immediately gets back on kpaca, which is quite interesting - not a single mention of screwing up on Toast!
But I didn't screw up, I accomplished exactly what I set out to do. OK, not exactly. I didn't expect to take this much heat over it. But the point remains.
Why shouldn't I switch my vote back to the player I actually found suspicious?
158: The point is that the implication of "I want to know who helped me" is that it implies, as the reverse of, "I'm interested in dealing with those who screwed me".
That's not a "reverse implication", that's a literal opposite. You've just taken what I said and asserted I meant the exact opposite.
As for Kraj's reactions to Az's points, I think they're important, but right now I want to know what he has to say here, as that response and reaction would factor into any analysis of those points.
Vote Kraj
Huh, you want to analyze my reactions to your post, but go ahead and vote me anyway? I suddenly feel like I wasted my time here.
Well here's my reaction to your points: they are by and large convoluted, nonsensical, and fail to evaluate whether any of my explanations I already provided are reasonable responses to your suspicions. I also think the fact that you pushed the speedlynch idea is extremely suspicious. My biggest reservation against adding my vote to you over this is that you attacked me in pretty much the same manner in Harry Potter. Also, my reread of your other posts didn't leave me with strong feelings about you other than you don't seem to be commenting on anything except comments directed specifically towards you.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
It wasn't a joke, it was bandwagoning for the sake of reactions. This is a really bizarre read; why would I lie and admit to bandwagoning if the honest response was that I was joking? All your logic hoops based on sarcasm and joking and whatnot (which makes up the bulk of your first chunk) just don't make sense.
See, I don't get the "bandwagoning for reactions" point. For one, it's clear that's what Az was doing. You doing the exact same thing would mean you'd have to interpret his as honest when it's the exact same as your dishonest vote - this is why I find it hard to believe your vote was dishonest. (Looking back, I think I screwed that up in the original quoted part. Sorry 'bout that.) My point is that you were honestly bandwagoning, but not for reactions, and the disconnect between the sarcastic vocal response and the honest active response suggests some dishonesty/disconnect - something I'd expect from a scum and not a townie.
It's interesting that both you and Charm Master have used "speed lynching" to describe Toastboy's wagon.
I used this term because this is the term Az used in the post you quoted.
(also, I am so happy there's a facepalm smilie. That just makes my day)
In my admittedly limited experience, the only speed lynches I have ever seen occur were during the endgame of Points where the mafia were using double voters against townies who were -2 to lynch. Outside of that aberration, I have never once seen a player lynched without extracting a claim. Even when someone claims a guilty cop investigation on another player, they are given a chance to respond. The idea that there was a risk of Toastboy getting speedlynched is patently absurd. The only "risk" was putting him in claim range without giving everyone a chance to comment, and even still the likelihood of no one observing the wagon's speed and unvoting before a claim happens is extremely small.
I'm not arguing anything about the speed or the risk. Nothing in the above applies to my analysis of you.
It's one thing to accuse me of hopping on without justification. Fine, that's what I did. It's even reasonable to not believe the claim that I did it to elicit reactions. But no one in his or her right mind and who has played any number of games on this site could possibly believe I was actually hoping TB would just get lynched.
Before arguing the real point, I want to point out the "it's one thing to X, but no one in his or her right mind would Y". This is several things: an appeal to reason (e.g. that form makes it sound like I'm questioning your integrity, the "no one in his or her right mind" suggests I'm not in my right mind, etc. etc. ad naus.). Very, very scummy, chap.
Another reason why this makes me confident in my scum tell is that it's impossible for me to respond to this argument - you're killing discussion. How about you explain why exactly "no one in his or her right mind and who has played any number of games on this site could possibly believe I was actually hoping TB would get lynched" and we'll go from there.
What's puzzling? I bandwagoned for the sake of eliciting reactions. Chris accused me of bandwagoning. I didn't deny it. If I elaborated at that time it would have undermined the reason I did it in the first place.
See, again, my point is that you did bandwagon, just that your bandwagoning wasn't for reactions and was disconnected from your sarcastic initial response to Az's comment.
And rightly so. Most of the time it's complete B.S. But at the very beginning of the game when there have been zero bandwagons and little of substance to comment on, doing scummy things - whatever they may be - for the sake of eliciting reactions is a totally common thing to do.
But it isn't the beginning of the game - heck, someone's already called me on that. Maybe if everyone's DATBF, you're justified in starting a wagon, but even then, you have some rationale.
I will now present Xyre's Rule of Bandwagons: No town wagon ever starts artificially.
There's always a rationale somewhere. Take Az's play this game. He's been hounding me since the very first post I made, with varying success, but his wagon isn't artificial - it's based in evidence. If a wagon is ever formed without evidence, it's a scum wagon in some way or another.
And did you really justify doing scummy things? I can only interpret your sentence in two ways:
1) Doing scummy things is justified => scummy things are good, or
2) Doing scummy things is so common it's justified => argumentum ad populum.
Either way, your argument (and ensuing justification) is very, very suspect.
Yes, that comment went too far. It's inaccurate to say little constructive discussion happens before the first lynch when there's actually a pretty decent odds of catching scum day 1. Put it back in context, though: CM had just voted me because "early bandwagons are bad". My point was that his assertion was nonsense, which it is.
His comment is a bit rash, yeah, but that doesn't mean your comment wasn't scummy. Furthermore, I'd argue wagons aren't always necessary to start discussion - you can still get a dialogue going between two players that doesn't necessarily polarize the town or push them one way or the other but still creates progress. But that's a chat for the theory thread.
Or, since the primary reason I voted Toastboy was to elicit reactions, there wasn't much reason for me to continue voting him after I elicited reactions.
But why not say that? It seems like doing so costs you nothing - the ploy has failed, the ploy likely won't work again, and it prevents us from having to waste time on this discussion. And, again, I don't see this in your posts.
I feel like you're trying to ret-con this shaky vote-unvote into something altogether less scummy.
But I didn't screw up, I accomplished exactly what I set out to do. OK, not exactly. I didn't expect to take this much heat over it. But the point remains.
Why shouldn't I switch my vote back to the player I actually found suspicious?
Okay, here are two questions:
1) What did you expect to gain from the fake vote? (Don't say "reactions", give me specifics. "Reactions" is the opposite of specifics.)
2) Why was that worth more than staying on your guy?
Right. I'm going to pretend nothing happened. While responding to every point raised against me. At -3 to lynch. Makes sense.
Hey, you tried to slip in the unvote at roughly the same point.
That's not a "reverse implication", that's a literal opposite. You've just taken what I said and asserted I meant the exact opposite.
My point is that by saying "I support the Americans", you're implying "I oppose the Nazis", and it sounds a lot more diplomatic. If you're, to continue the metaphor, trying to fight the Nazis, you want all the support you can get - hence trying to bring in the people who support you, who also are likely to oppose those who attack you. Make sense?
Huh, you want to analyze my reactions to your post, but go ahead and vote me anyway? I suddenly feel like I wasted my time here.
Reactions was a bad word choice. I want to understand your arguments. Though you did make some reactions I noted above that unintentionally helped validate in my mind this process.
Well here's my reaction to your points: they are by and large convoluted, nonsensical, and fail to evaluate whether any of my explanations I already provided are reasonable responses to your suspicions. I also think the fact that you pushed the speedlynch idea is extremely suspicious. My biggest reservation against adding my vote to you over this is that you attacked me in pretty much the same manner in Harry Potter. Also, my reread of your other posts didn't leave me with strong feelings about you other than you don't seem to be commenting on anything except comments directed specifically towards you.
Half of the above is untrue. The other half you didn't respond to. What's wrong with my fake reaction/genuine action analysis, which I used not once but twice for you?
Furthermore, the blue line is highly suspect. One, it feels like you're trying to derail my credibility by attacking my behavior rather than addressing my points; two, what do you think this entire discussion was? I said I'd review, you asked me to follow up on it, I did, and when the results come back, you say I'm focusing on only myself? Huh?
tl;dr: Respond to my actual, rather than perceived points; your posting style is very suspect. Confirm Vote
As for Harry Potter, I got wrapped up in the emotional response and let that cloud my judgment. Here, I think I have a much more straightforward view. Even without my arguments, you've provided a whole trove of behavior tells that suggest you overplayed your hand and are now overreacting.
There are two options here: either you're scum and think you can push through a wagon on me and look townie doing so, or - just like in Harry Potter - rather than accept the errors in your arguments you'll continue to see every single thing I say as scummy, pile on crappy argument after crappy argument, creating a situation where either I get lynched or you do. Is that really what you want here, or are you going to stop and think?
You doing the exact same thing would mean you'd have to interpret his as honest when it's the exact same as your dishonest vote - this is why I find it hard to believe your vote was dishonest.
First of all, if it was "clear" Azrael was bandwagoning for reactions, then how on Earth does that lead to his vote meaning he honestly thought Toastboy was scum? You clearly and obviously contradict yourself in consecutive sentences. This is what I'm talking about: either you're intentionally throwing any argument you can think of at me, or you're not even bothering to think about what you're saying.
Secondly, if I decided to vote just for reactions, how does it follow that I must have believed Azrael genuinely thought Toastboy was scum?
Finally, if you believe my vote was genuine, what possible motivation would I have for saying otherwise? Sure it's WIFOM to say "If I were scum I never would admit to bandwagoning", but there's just no sensible explanation for why, as scum, I wouldn't just say "TB is scummy, so I voted him". If you've got one I'd love to hear it.
I used this term because this is the term Az used in the post you quoted.
(also, I am so happy there's a facepalm smilie. That just makes my day)
I'm not arguing anything about the speed or the risk. Nothing in the above applies to my analysis of you.
OK, fine. Then what, exactly, is my motivation as for obviously and admittedly bandwagoning other than what i've claimed?
Before arguing the real point, I want to point out the "it's one thing to X, but no one in his or her right mind would Y". This is several things: an appeal to reason (e.g. that form makes it sound like I'm questioning your integrity, the "no one in his or her right mind" suggests I'm not in my right mind, etc. etc. ad naus.). Very, very scummy, chap.
I don't see what integrity has to do with it, but yes, on the assumption that you're town you're not in your right mind. No one in their right mind thinks someone is motivated by making an event happen that never happens.
Another reason why this makes me confident in my scum tell is that it's impossible for me to respond to this argument - you're killing discussion. How about you explain why exactly "no one in his or her right mind and who has played any number of games on this site could possibly believe I was actually hoping TB would get lynched" and we'll go from there.
How about the reason I already gave: it's practically impossible for it to actually happen. That's why it kills the argument: there is no arguing the point; it's just fact. Players don't get speedlynched. End of story. What would you like to say in response?
See, again, my point is that you did bandwagon, just that your bandwagoning wasn't for reactions and was disconnected from your sarcastic initial response to Az's comment.
And this point, which you seem to build and entire case and opinion around, is nothing more than a gut read and offers absolutely zero explanations for my behavior. Whereas accepting I'm telling the truth about my motivation does.
But it isn't the beginning of the game - heck, someone's already called me on that. Maybe if everyone's DATBF, you're justified in starting a wagon, but even then, you have some rationale.
So... are you saying my post wasn't at the beginning of the game? Toastboy's wagon wasn't the first wagon or the first major thing for anyone to comment on?
Or are you saying that it is not, now, the beginning of the game... so my earlier actions aren't justified now?
I will now present Xyre's Rule of Bandwagons: No town wagon ever starts artificially.
There's always a rationale somewhere. Take Az's play this game. He's been hounding me since the very first post I made, with varying success, but his wagon isn't artificial - it's based in evidence. If a wagon is ever formed without evidence, it's a scum wagon in some way or another.
And did you really justify doing scummy things? I can only interpret your sentence in two ways:
1) Doing scummy things is justified => scummy things are good, or
2) Doing scummy things is so common it's justified => argumentum ad populum.
Either way, your argument (and ensuing justification) is very, very suspect.
Then I'll attempt to make the logic more plain so that you get it. Intentionally doing something scummy for reactions in the early game is a common play from townies because it generates discussion. This doesn't make the behavior less scummy, but it makes the explanation 100% plausible. You can disbelieve the explanation if you choose, but you ought to have a sensible reason for doing so (for example, if TB was lynched and flipped town then you'd have a fair reason to think I actually was lying, which incidentally is why I made the comment about people going ape**** over my bandwagoning without knowing TB's alignment).
In short, if you don't have a logical explanation for a scum tell then you don't have a scum tell. If you have a logical explanation for a scum tell but an equally plausible pro-town explanation, then you've got a null tell.
But why not say that? It seems like doing so costs you nothing - the ploy has failed, the ploy likely won't work again, and it prevents us from having to waste time on this discussion. And, again, I don't see this in your posts.
Why didn't I explicitly point out I voted simply for reactions in the post where I unvoted? I wasn't particularly concerned with defending myself from the votes on me at the time, I was focusing on commenting on reactions.
And the ploy failed? There was no ploy, there was no clever trap, it was simply an action designed to elicit reactions. Which it did.
I feel like you're trying to ret-con this shaky vote-unvote into something altogether less scummy.
Once again, a gut reaction based on the fact that you just don't believe my motivation was to elicit reactions. Why don't you just own up to that instead of insisting on coming up with nonsense logic to back it up?
Okay, here are two questions:
1) What did you expect to gain from the fake vote? (Don't say "reactions", give me specifics. "Reactions" is the opposite of specifics.)
As I believe I've already said, I wasn't looking for any specific response and I think any reaction has potential information to be gleaned, just like analyzing the votes an a given wagon. Who voted for me over it, and for what reasons? Was it a straightforward vote or were extra reasons given? Were those extra reasons valid? What is the timing of the reactions? What is the tone of the reactions? Who disagreed with the voters and why? Who didn't comment at all? And so on.
2) Why was that worth more than staying on your guy?
Why would I forgoe a play that I think has value just to keep my vote where it is? It's not as if I was vehemently campaigning for kpaca's lynch only to suddenly switch my vote.
Hey, you tried to slip in the unvote at roughly the same point.
My point is that by saying "I support the Americans", you're implying "I oppose the Nazis", and it sounds a lot more diplomatic.
No, that's not what you said. You said that by saying I was interested in the players who defended me, I implied being interested in the players who attacked me. That's saying I said "I oppose the Nazis" but implied "I oppose the Americans". Maybe that's not what you meant, but that's what you said.
What's wrong with my fake reaction/genuine action analysis, which I used not once but twice for you?
Because it's circular. In order for your gut calls of fake/genuine to make logical sense, you have to use assume the calls are correct. Otherwise, my actual explanation is more plausible in every way.
Furthermore, the blue line is highly suspect. One, it feels like you're trying to derail my credibility by attacking my behavior rather than addressing my points;
Bull. ****. I have addressed every one of your points.
Just because you're attacking me doesn't mean I'm not allowed to identify your own behavior issues.
two, what do you think this entire discussion was? I said I'd review, you asked me to follow up on it, I did, and when the results come back, you say I'm focusing on only myself? Huh?
I didn't say you only comment on posts about you, I said you only comment on posts directed at you. You comment on other people's behavior when someone prompts you to. This case is no exception.
As for Harry Potter, I got wrapped up in the emotional response and let that cloud my judgment. Here, I think I have a much more straightforward view. Even without my arguments, you've provided a whole trove of behavior tells that suggest you overplayed your hand and are now overreacting.
Straightforward?
???
Your entire case on me boils down to you think I sarcastically supported TB's wagon but actually seriously supported it. Every one of your initial points boils roots in that. Every one of your points after that has taken absolutely everything I have said and paints it in a scummy light whether or not it makes the slightest lick of sense to do so.
You're view is anything but straightforward.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
Alright, I started reviewing all your points and got sick of it halfway through (that, and you sound like you did in HP - indignation - which is an important sign). Most of your arguments aren't leading anywhere, but there was one in there I did get stuck on, one you should have made earlier: what did Scum Kraj have to gain from just putting a vote on? And I couldn't think of a good answer for that. Bad sign.
Just answer me these questions:
1) Why did you phrase your response to Az ("I am so down with a stupidly fast day 1") the way you did? I'm especially curious about the "stupidly fast" part. That seems designed to deter voters, rather than attract them, and was part of the reason I deemed it sarcastic.
2) Why were you trying to get reactions at all? Slash did you expect/not expect reactions from Az's post which you quoted, which seemed to be the exact same thing as your post?
I have another question, probably, but I can't remember it. For now, the above will essentially resolve this matter for now. I may go look over your scum-games, but right now, Unvote.
a) I'm not a fan of reaction-getting posts, and I lump them in with most Cunning Plans. That's why I referred to it as a "ploy".
3) What reactions did you get? You mentioned Charm in 162, but that seemed to be the end of it, at least where those who subsequently voted you were concerned. Or was your point all along to get reactions from your defenders? If so, why didn't you say that, as you could have saved us a fair portion of the above grief?
Yeah, after re-reading, especially Kraj's "So happy with my vote right now. NO WAIT I LIED, UNVOTE VOTE THIS GUY" and especially with his "so down for a stupidly fast Day One right now" post, it does in fact seem more and more likely that by using those words, he was trying to break down toastboy's wagon.
I think he may have been trying to draw attention away from Toastboy, and intended to simply shrug it off later.
He himself stated that he didn't think he'd draw this much fire over it.
So, right now, my picks for the scum team are Xyre, Kraj, and Toastboy.
It looks to me as if Kraj's obv scum move to elicit reactions was fully explained in a back and forth with Az, and was followed by Xyre picking apart what had already been explained as if the whole discussion had never happened... Then he continued to argue the point as if there were something there. I don't care for that at all. MAYBE if you went for Kraj's responses to Az there would be a case, but what you're doing is over-analysis of what has already been explained in what appears to be an attempt to win over lazy townies. Calling scum on what has been established as a trap just doesn't fly.
I think it's interesting that you make this comment...
...and then back away yourself a few hours later, as the "matter is resolved for now"(paraphrased). Why did you unvote when there are still open(important?) questions left?
I don't suspect him as much. Doesn't mean there aren't questions to be answered.
First of all, if it was "clear" Azrael was bandwagoning for reactions, then how on Earth does that lead to his vote meaning he honestly thought Toastboy was scum?
In fairness to Xyre-scum on this point, pretty much everything I do, even the way I present my suspicions, are calculated to produce reactions one way or another.
*glances at Phantom, wonders if he's growing a shadow*
Just answer me these questions:
1) Why did you phrase your response to Az ("I am so down with a stupidly fast day 1") the way you did? I'm especially curious about the "stupidly fast" part. That seems designed to deter voters, rather than attract them, and was part of the reason I deemed it sarcastic.
Just to be clear, when you say "designed to deter voters, rather than attract them" you mean on Toastboy, correct? In that case, there was no such design; I had no intention of influencing whether people voted Toastboy or not, my point was to see how they would react to me.
I think the reason you read sarcasm in my tone is because I was being playful rather than giving a serious reason to back my vote.
2) Why were you trying to get reactions at all? Slash did you expect/not expect reactions from Az's post which you quoted, which seemed to be the exact same thing as your post?
I think a post that present arguments on a player and places an original vote is going to elicit very different reactions than a vote that puts a player at -3 to lynch without any reasons to support it.
3) What reactions did you get? You mentioned Charm in 162, but that seemed to be the end of it, at least where those who subsequently voted you were concerned.
I also talked about Phantom in that same post (and at least once since as well). I've also mentioned points at various times, but I think this is a fair question because I haven't given a plain rundown of what I gleaned.
1. Abandon Hope - Completely ignored my vote and the votes on me in favor of focusing on Toastboy. Neutral read here; could be simple playstyle, could be he perceived trouble and wanted to steer clear, could be he considered it nothing more than an annoying distraction, could be he recognized what I was up to and was looking at reactions. No way to tell.
2. Azrael - I expected a town Azrael to recognize what I was doing and either sit back and watch or react to the reactions. I expected a scum Azrael to maneuver his way into attacking me for it. He did the former and then he did the latter. In looking at his arguments, though, I didn't find much of anything to suggest his attack was unreasonable or dishonest. I think the sum of his reactions leans town.
3. Charm_Master3125 - This was by far the scummiest reaction (as was his vote on Skander). He makes no opinion on Toastboy's behavior, nor does he say the reasons people are voting him are bad or call me out on bandwagoning, but he's suspicious just of the speed of the wagon. This is classic mafia hedge-betting: wag your finger at a wagon on a townie while leaving yourself open to join it later once you decide there are good reasons.
He repeats this all again in 176 (still not bothering to form an opinion on Toastboy), and pushes the "fear of a speedlynch" explanation, which is complete bull. When Xyre said he was simply using the term 'speedlynch, because Azrael used it, I can believe it because Xyre's actual arguments don't revolve around fear of a speed lynch. But Charm Master's do.
4. ChrisXIV - Initial vote on me was ironically bandwagony, but ultimately I think his reaction was similar to PhantomS'. Leaning town.
5. kpaca - He actually voted for me over my follow-up post, not my vote, so I'll focus on his actual reaction to my vote/voters. That was post 146 where he responds to Azrael's switch from Toast to Xyre by saying Netfinity is a better suspect than Xyre or "even" Kraj. What I note here is that kpaca makes no opinion at all of my vote, or of the people who voted me, or of Netfinity who defended me, or anything. What he does do is indirectly imply that my wagon is valid. Very scummy.
7. Netfinity - Normally townies are interested in hearing a player's response to attacks before speaking his own opinion. Quickly coming to a player's defense might mean he's looking to be on the right side of a mislynch. In this specific case, he might have also wanted to defend me because I was attacking his primary attacker. However, in post 81 he says Xyre is suspicious for defending WoD and in post 108 he says Toast is supicious for defending Chris. Though I find Net's defense of me suspicious, I have a hard time seeing a scum making the same tell that he is so obviously aware of as to call other players out on.
8. PhantomS - As I said before, he reacted exactly as I suspected a townie would. He saw a classic scum tell, placed a vote over it, 'nuff said.
9. Skander - Didn't react at all. Like AH, who knows why that might be? It's possible it was because he was focused on fending off attacks on himself. Neutral reaction.
10. Xyre - Also made no direct reaction until prompted to. Consistent with that pattern of behavior I noted. No real conclusion to be made here. Neutral.
11. Toastboy - His reactions strike me as genuine. First he says he finds my vote suspicious, and says he didn't like how I "attacked people for mindlessly agreeing Azrael, before following his vote with no reasoning of his own." It's not a particularly good argument seeing as how the ought to have communicated that FoS was facetious, but it strikes me as an honest observation. As does his follow-up question, "@Kraj, why are/were you in a rush to end D1?" Looks like he was trying to make sense of my apparent desire to speedlynch. In the same post, he thinks about what the scum motivation would be for my behavior.
All in all, Toastboy's reactions look like an genuine attempt to figure the situation out.
12. Wrath_of_Dog - No reaction. Neutral read, like the other non-reactors.
Or was your point all along to get reactions from your defenders? If so, why didn't you say that, as you could have saved us a fair portion of the above grief?
As I've said multiple times, I didn't do it looking for certain reactions. I wasn't just interested in who voted me, or just who defended me, or just who didn't say anything at all, etc.
Yeah, after re-reading, especially Kraj's "So happy with my vote right now. NO WAIT I LIED, UNVOTE VOTE THIS GUY" and especially with his "so down for a stupidly fast Day One right now" post, it does in fact seem more and more likely that by using those words, he was trying to break down toastboy's wagon.
K, so your read on the situation is that my plan was to instill doubt in Toastboy's wagon by acting suspicious and therefore make other player's go "gee, look how awful that wagon is"? Wow, that's incedibly subtle. I'm going to have to remember that one next time I'm scum.
But this brings me 'round to my point on bandwagoning. If TB dies and flips scum, then you might have something. But logic that relies on my being TB's scumbuddy without knowing whether TB is scum is just convoluted nonsense compared to the much more plausible explanation that I'm simply telling the truth. Occam's Razor, here.
It looks to me as if Kraj's obv scum move to elicit reactions was fully explained in a back and forth with Az, and was followed by Xyre picking apart what had already been explained as if the whole discussion had never happened... Then he continued to argue the point as if there were something there. I don't care for that at all.
You have a point, be he also prefaced his argument with the fact that he didn't take my responses to Azrael into consideration yet.
As far as Xyre goes, if people are going to vote him I'd like to see something more substantial behind it than "his arguments come across as scummy". I've played at least two games with him where as town he made scummy-sounding arguments, then sounded scummy in his defense, dug himself into a big ol' hole, and got lynched. I'd rather not see that repeated. As frustrating as I found his arguments to be, I didn't really get a sense that he was intentionally twisting things around; I think he genuinely held the point of view he expressed. Further, after cutting through all the crap he backs off a bit but follows through with some good questions. That looks townie to me.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
As far as Xyre goes, if people are going to vote him I'd like to see something more substantial behind it than "his arguments come across as scummy". I've played at least two games with him where as town he made scummy-sounding arguments, then sounded scummy in his defense, dug himself into a big ol' hole, and got lynched. I'd rather not see that repeated. As frustrating as I found his arguments to be, I didn't really get a sense that he was intentionally twisting things around; I think he genuinely held the point of view he expressed. Further, after cutting through all the crap he backs off a bit but follows through with some good questions. That looks townie to me.
This is fair. I'm about to head to work, and have a busy few days, but when i get a bit of time I will go back and read again. I don't like backing off on something like this based on meta so my vote will hold until I find something more substantial to place a vote for.
MTGS stats (won/played)
As scum - 3/5
As town - 5/7
As neutral - none
(I really have been scum a lot)
I'm now writing for Eye of the Vortex, come check out MTG articles and other geek culture
I also moderate the MTG forum, so register (it's free) and voice your thoughts.
One thing I should add to my analysis of reactions: the useful thing that can be gotten from the players who did not react is that non-reaction is generally neutral in regards to a specific incident, but can be scummy if part of an overall pattern of avoiding making opinions.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
Just to be clear, when you say "designed to deter voters, rather than attract them" you mean on Toastboy, correct? In that case, there was no such design; I had no intention of influencing whether people voted Toastboy or not, my point was to see how they would react to me.
Yeah. What bugged me a bit about it was it seemed like your reaction play was less a "try to get people to wagon and nail them" play and more a "post something unconventional, see what happens" play. The latter isn't really my thing, though I can understand how you set it up now.
I think the reason you read sarcasm in my tone is because I was being playful rather than giving a serious reason to back my vote.
Sarcastic, playful - it's all the same when you're talking in terms of genuineness.
I'm going to go back and consider the reactions in relation to the posts of the players in question.
Very likely town
2. Azrael
5. kpaca
12. Wrath_of_Dog (at least for now)
Leaning town
6. Kraj (I understand his approach more, though it's not the technique I'd have used, and I like the reactions)
4. ChrisXIV
1. Abandon Hope (lurking like a madman, per usual; needs to contribute. The least solid of this group)
No idea (need reviews of these people first)
3. Charm_Master3125 (He hasn't really made an impression on me, though my hunch right now is townish)
8. PhantomS (He's contributing and making useful points, but if there's anyone who's riding on Az's coattails, it would probably be him)
12: Random post, maybe? I recognize the quote, and there's only one case I can think of where this would make sense as a scum tell, and that seems like something CM would never do... but it still feels rather referential, considering neither of them had posted prior in the game. Unless there's an inside joke I'm missing?
16 and 18: Thought this was a strange choice of smilies, until I remembered the smilie-code. (for the uninitiated)
111 and 112: After vanishing for a bit, he's the first person to hop on the accelerating Toastboy wagon. I think his response to Kraj's post is genuine, especially in conjunction with the vote on Skander immediately preceding it.
119: Ah, that phrase that always sends me up a wall: "good townie play". It also bothers me that he doesn't at all comment on the bandwagon he just started (intentionally or not) on Kraj, especially in this context. Bottom line is the guy doesn't seem to be giving out much - he only has two posts left, and we're only on page 3.
172: Unvotes, apparently in response to Kraj's unvote, which is bothersome. He's speaking (in the first line) entirely in past tense, as if Kraj's suspiciousness suddenly evaporated as soon as he stopped applying pressure. This to me suggests two approaches by CM: either he really doesn't care about chasing scum too much, or he was just latching onto a target of convenience. Only the latter is scum, though, and his lurking to me suggests the former more. Doesn't say a single thing about Kraj, or his responses, viz. why they make sense, which is bothersome.
176: Pretty much a rehash of previous points. Definitely sidesteps AH's question.
Summary: Lurking hard. In retrospect, I think I've given him more credit than he deserves. Now leaning slightly scum.
Charm: Give me your top three town and top three scum. Don't need to be in any particular order, but I want rationales.
Every time I go to reread I lose interest fast because several of the players I'm interested in don't have much posts, namely these guys:
Abandon Hope
Charm Master
Netfinity
I have the same very likely town list as Xyre (Az, kpaca, WoD).
Re the Xyre/Kraj stuff. These kind of long arguments back and forth lose me fast so I'm glad that it didn't turn into something that derailed the thread. I don't think either one comes badly out of it. I can easily see Kraj's TB vote as a gambit.
Xyre: Still? I thought you saw where I was coming from - or did I misinterpret a post of yours?
Hmmm. unvote Kraj. The back and forth with Xyre has move me more toward Kraj being in the middle of my list. At the moment I really would like to hear more from netfinity. And I do mean really.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Official Moderator of The [Gutter]
Think the MtgStaff is just swell? Join today! You too can be involved in an 8 year grudge and delete nearly 9000 of kpaca's posts!
5. kpaca - He actually voted for me over my follow-up post, not my vote, so I'll focus on his actual reaction to my vote/voters. That was post 146 where he responds to Azrael's switch from Toast to Xyre by saying Netfinity is a better suspect than Xyre or "even" Kraj. What I note here is that kpaca makes no opinion at all of my vote, or of the people who voted me, or of Netfinity who defended me, or anything. What he does do is indirectly imply that my wagon is valid. Very scummy.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
I've already explained that I do not explain every part of my thought process at all times, as is my norm :teach:.
However, I will give you some insight. Kraj's vote seemed too blatantly stupid of a misstep for a player of his caliber to actually be doing as scum, as such I figured it was a gambit. What gave me pause was his attack of me, which has been previously covered by Az (charged language, etc). As such, I voted accordingly, as he didn't seem to be exhibiting a townie attitude. As for not commenting on the players switching their votes, they were on a wagon I supported, so I obviously didn't openly question them. I have indeed watched the votes and reactions to Kraj's play, but as I've said and as you know, I keep these sort of thoughts to myself much of the time.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Official Moderator of The [Gutter]
Think the MtgStaff is just swell? Join today! You too can be involved in an 8 year grudge and delete nearly 9000 of kpaca's posts!
I've already explained that I do not explain every part of my thought process at all times, as is my norm :teach:.
However, I will give you some insight. Kraj's vote seemed too blatantly stupid of a misstep for a player of his caliber to actually be doing as scum, as such I figured it was a gambit. What gave me pause was his attack of me, which has been previously covered by Az (charged language, etc). As such, I voted accordingly, as he didn't seem to be exhibiting a townie attitude. As for not commenting on the players switching their votes, they were on a wagon I supported, so I obviously didn't openly question them. I have indeed watched the votes and reactions to Kraj's play, but as I've said and as you know, I keep these sort of thoughts to myself much of the time.
What do each of you think about my analysis of kpaca?
I think the rest of his posts have been very sound, and he's contributing a great deal. I think the "even Kraj" point was less a consideration of your scumminess and more recognition of the votes on you, though it does strike me as a bit odd.
I'm not a fan of that post then. Why would you make such a broad generalization, instead of just looking into what people have said or developing your own hypothesis. Are you expecting Az or Xyre to do the legwork for you? This sounds like a somewhat convenient move to make when you're scum and not really trying to formulate your own scum hunting stratagem.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Official Moderator of The [Gutter]
Think the MtgStaff is just swell? Join today! You too can be involved in an 8 year grudge and delete nearly 9000 of kpaca's posts!
A) That's exactly what I did. I had a "point" to add and added it.
B) Yes the point just ocurred to me. Only, that it isn't really a point. See above.
C) You are making this up. You are basing all your points on the assumption that you are always right and I don't think(and I know it isn't) that's the case.
"Thoughts on Kraj": Where exactly do you see the changing thoughts in his post?
A and B are mutually exclusive: you can't have originally thought of the point and had forgotten to post it, and also have just had the same point occur to you. However, I can see how what I meant by point A could be easily misinterpreted. I'm going to take "the point just occurred to me" as your answer since you explicitly stated it. And I've already explained why I find this scummy:
B) The point just occurred to him now. This I think is scummy because it indicates that the original attack wasn't very well thought out and he's just adding in details as he goes along.
Feeling good about Azrael right now. Rather than support or shoot down my wagon, he sat back and watched reactions. I ought to have some comments on said reactions tomorrow.
I think this brings an interesting point to the table. Azrael, as I've read in other games as well, has a tendency to wait and evaluate players based on reactions. But he didn't do so when Xyre attacked Skander. He responded to the attack before Skander had anything to say for himself (and later Skander seemed to be hiding behind that defense). By doing this, he implicitly assumes Skander's towniness and is not actually interested in reading him as it seems he wants us to think. But then this brings into question why he waited for reactions in the Kraj incident (if I may call it that). My answer is exactly what he was accusing Kraj of doing: "he was already planning on using it to launch counter-strikes; regardless of the style in which people attacked him." in that Azrael was going to use the results of Kraj's "gambit" to stage an attack. What helped me reach this conclusion was his seemingly forced attack on Kraj:
His first-post joke-vote against WoD struck me as a form of townie humor, rather than mafia.
But as of his last two posts, I'm abandoning that read, and joining the wagon.
I'll start here. "abandoning your read, and joining the wagon" seems off to me. Abandoning has the connotation that you're merely leaving it behind and forgetting about it as opposed to actually have read into something that convinced you otherwise. Joining the wagon I think helps clarify that an opposing read isn't what's important here.
The lightning-fast day/bandwagoning point against bunk is bunk. Don't take his surface motive at face value. Part of what Kraj was doing was setting up a trap, eliciting reactions. He says as much in his last two posts, and he's the calibre of player who won't accidentally put on a sandwich board with big, bold red letters screaming "VOTE FOR ME!", unless he means to.
Don't consider that evidence against him.
As for the things that do disturb me in his last two posts under substantial pressure, stay tuned below.
Having set his trap and sprung it, we have an across-the-board, mildly sarcastic assault directed at the folks putting pressure on him.
Sarcasm isn't much of a tell on his own, but he's not even really engaging with the arguments against him here. On the argument that his vote-switch to Toastboy was bizarre (it was, although on purpose), he plays it off as though his behavior was perfectly normal and his attackers are overreacting.
It may be a bad point, but he takes a cheap stab instead of admitting the stunt was odd.
Pointing out sarcasm seems to be not an actual part of the argument but rather an attempt to make it appear better. Really your point is that he's playing off the attacks and pretending like the attacker's are overreacting. The fact that he's using sarcasm has nothing to do with whether your points are valid or not.
Then there's his comment about people seeing his bandwagon on Toasty was scummy, even though we don't know Toasty's alignment. Completely overlooks that the style of a post is a much better indicator of alignment than its actual effect.
Come on. We can't accuse anyone of being scummy before we know if the person they're attacking is scum? Please.
As a possible town explanation, maybe that comment is being generated out of Kraj hoping to gain reactions on two levels: reactions to himself, and information about Toastboy's alignment (who he does appear to suspect). Still, it's incredibly off-base.
Up till now, we've just had some weird logic errors. But when we get to this point, we start getting some dodgy mindset tells.
This basically tells me that Az wasn't ever reading to much into the above points anyway.
This reaction looks canned. And by canned, I mean I think he was planning on making this post as soon as he voted for Toastboy. Going into the gambit, he was already planning on using it to launch counter-strikes; regardless of the style in which people attacked him.
I haven't seen any scum tells generated in the course of the attack on Kraj. Some useful town reactions perhaps, but no scum indicators. Nevertheless Kraj has already started auto-firing at everyone who took a piece out of him. There's no thinking-through who's been scummy here: he's just mindlessly retaliating against everyone who attacked him.
That's a scum-like defense against pressure, not a pro-town thinking process.
I think this is where Az overlooks some important parts of Kraj's analysis: he's taking everyone who posted in some responsive way to his "gambit" post into account. And, Az overexaggerates (perhaps intentionally to make the point seem better) in saying that Kraj is auto-firing because Kraj's responses at a lot of points were defenses rather than counter attacks.
Whew. Look at that counter-attack. The language is so super-charged, it almost palpably sizzles. Rhetoric that strong doesn't indicate an analytical mindset, it indicates a fighting mentality.
Maybe a townie Kraj falls into a fighting mentality in this situation, but I'm inclined to read this as mafia pulling a gambit, and catching a little bit more heat from it than he expected. Instead of coolly presenting his explanation, with confidence in his ability to survive, he's seriously concerned by this pressure. I don't think a townie would be as seriously concerned, if he had a valid defense already prepared, and at least one analyst in-thread (me) who had already signalled that he recognized the gambit.
Consider my vote on Kraj.
Requesting vote-count.
Overall, I feel that Az's attack on Kraj was quite forced. The opening line I think betrayed Az's intentions and I feel like add had to add unnecessary things to make the case seem better. Unvote, Vote Azrael.
I find the following players suspicious:
Charm_Master3125- He hasn't been saying much and seems to be circumventing major discussion topics: specifically with his vote on Skander and then Kraj where he votes them for the mere speed of the wagon and neglects to comment on the validity of the wagon itself.
ChrisXIV- I think I've already made myself clear here.
Azrael- Look above.
I'll put together my thoughts on all of the players later; I'm quite hungry right now.
Charm: Give me your top three town and top three scum. Don't need to be in any particular order, but I want rationales.
sure thing boss.
Town:
Azrael - From my play experience he's coming off as he usually does as town: rallying the town with sound logic and attacking weaknesses he sees. As scum he tends to be much more laid back and try to be less of a target.
Kpaca - I haven't developed a read on how he plays but he seems to be asking the right questions and not taking anything for granted. makes sense from someone who has very limited information
Skander: even though he put a 3rd vote on the early toast wagon he has explained what he did and has been going after real discrepancies in people's behaviors, not just taking pot-shots in the dark.
scum:
Kraj: Skander is relatively new to the game as far as I can see; kraj has been here much longer and dropped a 4th vote on a very early wagon based on very little evidence. I would like to think that me questioning the wagon's speed cut things off from a premature lynch (because that would mean I actually *did* something)
Netfinity: He reminds me of myself in several of my other games as scum (tales coming to mind). post very rarely, enough to not get prodded but not enough that anyone pays any attention to your posts. a very lurk-in-plain-sight vibe.
WoD: very much lurking, I forgot he was playing until chris mentioned him. He doesn't seem to be the kind to lurk much from what I recall.
and as a bonus, explaining my 12: my vote/comment was just in repsonse to the fact that he recently declined a trade offer I made. the spin on the quote just felt appropos.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Top 16 - 2012 Indiana State Championships Currently Playing: GBStandard - Golgari Safari MidrangeBG RBWModern - Mardu PyromancerWBR RLegacy - Good Old Fashioned BurnR
Abandon Hope is lurking hardcore, Charm Master too and Netfinity...
I saw this come up repeatedly. Rest assured I am paying attention. I have no particular insight at this time, nor do I find interrupting semantic arguments productive. Somethings did seem relevant: Charm master's behavior, Toastboy's wagon, Wrath's scumlist.
scum:
Kraj: Skander is relatively new to the game as far as I can see; kraj has been here much longer and dropped a 4th vote on a very early wagon based on very little evidence. I would like to think that me questioning the wagon's speed cut things off from a premature lynch (because that would mean I actually *did* something)
Why is this reasoning only coming up now? What did you think when you originally voted me?
Why is this reasoning only coming up now? What did you think when you originally voted me?
I thought the exact same thing. statistically speaking, 3rd and 4th votes of wagons (especially early ones) are more likely to be from scum. you put a third vote on toast, turning a collection of random votes into a wagon. that's scummy. Kraj, who should know better, went and added a fourth vote to the wagon. I looked at the posted vote count and voted you based on the 3rd vote, then realized kraj put another one on. He was much more deserving of pressure in that instance.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Top 16 - 2012 Indiana State Championships Currently Playing: GBStandard - Golgari Safari MidrangeBG RBWModern - Mardu PyromancerWBR RLegacy - Good Old Fashioned BurnR
I thought the exact same thing. statistically speaking, 3rd and 4th votes of wagons (especially early ones) are more likely to be from scum. you put a third vote on toast, turning a collection of random votes into a wagon. that's scummy. Kraj, who should know better, went and added a fourth vote to the wagon. I looked at the posted vote count and voted you based on the 3rd vote, then realized kraj put another one on. He was much more deserving of pressure in that instance.
You diffrentiated me from Kraj by saying I was newer but Kraj as a more experienced player should be held more accountable. Why are you giving me a pass now as opposed to before?
I'm not giving you a pass as much as saying that he was more scummy by adding on to the wagon.
also, due to unforeseen circumstances, I'm sadly requesting immediate replacement. my internet access is being stripped and I cannot guarantee any posting more than once a week. I really hoped it would not have come to this but that's all I can do.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Top 16 - 2012 Indiana State Championships Currently Playing: GBStandard - Golgari Safari MidrangeBG RBWModern - Mardu PyromancerWBR RLegacy - Good Old Fashioned BurnR
MTGS stats (won/played)
As scum - 3/5
As town - 5/7
As neutral - none
(I really have been scum a lot)
I'm now writing for Eye of the Vortex, come check out MTG articles and other geek culture
I also moderate the MTG forum, so register (it's free) and voice your thoughts.
In case it wasn't obvious, I'm not actually using eenie meenie minie moe there.
In case you're asking why I'm voting and unvoting back to back, it's because I'm wavering on the validity of our wagons.
Quote from netfinity »
I think this brings an interesting point to the table. Azrael, as I've read in other games as well, has a tendency to wait and evaluate players based on reactions. But he didn't do so when Xyre attacked Skander. He responded to the attack before Skander had anything to say for himself (and later Skander seemed to be hiding behind that defense). By doing this, he implicitly assumes Skander's towniness and is not actually interested in reading him as it seems he wants us to think. But then this brings into question why he waited for reactions in the Kraj incident (if I may call it that). My answer is exactly what he was accusing Kraj of doing: "he was already planning on using it to launch counter-strikes; regardless of the style in which people attacked him." in that Azrael was going to use the results of Kraj's "gambit" to stage an attack. What helped me reach this conclusion was his seemingly forced attack on Kraj:
When I'm interested in reading a player, I do tend to wait for reactions.
When I have a strong town read on a player, as I mentioned I had with Skander, I'll tend to weigh in against a dubious attack against them whether they've responded personally or not.
Quote from netfinity »
Overall, I feel that Az's attack on Kraj was quite forced. The opening line I think betrayed Az's intentions and I feel like add had to add unnecessary things to make the case seem better. Unvote, Vote Azrael.
I'll start here. "abandoning your read, and joining the wagon" seems off to me. Abandoning has the connotation that you're merely leaving it behind and forgetting about it as opposed to actually have read into something that convinced you otherwise. Joining the wagon I think helps clarify that an opposing read isn't what's important here.
Yes, abandoning my read is precisely the correct connotation. I no longer trusted it because it was a tenative read, and by that time was outweighed by more substantive actions.
Quote from netfinity »
Pointing out sarcasm seems to be not an actual part of the argument but rather an attempt to make it appear better. Really your point is that he's playing off the attacks and pretending like the attacker's are overreacting. The fact that he's using sarcasm has nothing to do with whether your points are valid or not.
I mention sarcasm because it can be one of the components of a scum-like response; especially one in which they're attempting to belittle the attacks against them.
Quote from netfinity »
And, Az overexaggerates (perhaps intentionally to make the point seem better) in saying that Kraj is auto-firing because Kraj's responses at a lot of points were defenses rather than counter attacks.
Strong language is standard operating procedure for me when I'm launching an initial pressure vote. If a player doesn't take the pressure seriously, their reactions are less likely to be useful.
Azrael - From my play experience he's coming off as he usually does as town: rallying the town with sound logic and attacking weaknesses he sees. As scum he tends to be much more laid back and try to be less of a target.
*begins eenie meenie minie moe*
Xyre talks more.
Xyre's ignoring me. It makes me feel lonely inside.
It wasn't a joke, it was bandwagoning for the sake of reactions. This is a really bizarre read; why would I lie and admit to bandwagoning if the honest response was that I was joking? All your logic hoops based on sarcasm and joking and whatnot (which makes up the bulk of your first chunk) just don't make sense.
It's interesting that both you and Charm Master have used "speed lynching" to describe Toastboy's wagon. In my admittedly limited experience, the only speed lynches I have ever seen occur were during the endgame of Points where the mafia were using double voters against townies who were -2 to lynch. Outside of that aberration, I have never once seen a player lynched without extracting a claim. Even when someone claims a guilty cop investigation on another player, they are given a chance to respond. The idea that there was a risk of Toastboy getting speedlynched is patently absurd. The only "risk" was putting him in claim range without giving everyone a chance to comment, and even still the likelihood of no one observing the wagon's speed and unvoting before a claim happens is extremely small.
It's one thing to accuse me of hopping on without justification. Fine, that's what I did. It's even reasonable to not believe the claim that I did it to elicit reactions. But no one in his or her right mind and who has played any number of games on this site could possibly believe I was actually hoping TB would just get lynched.
What's puzzling? I bandwagoned for the sake of eliciting reactions. Chris accused me of bandwagoning. I didn't deny it. If I elaborated at that time it would have undermined the reason I did it in the first place.
And rightly so. Most of the time it's complete B.S. But at the very beginning of the game when there have been zero bandwagons and little of substance to comment on, doing scummy things - whatever they may be - for the sake of eliciting reactions is a totally common thing to do.
Yes, that comment went too far. It's inaccurate to say little constructive discussion happens before the first lynch when there's actually a pretty decent odds of catching scum day 1. Put it back in context, though: CM had just voted me because "early bandwagons are bad". My point was that his assertion was nonsense, which it is.
How was WoD's response vague and unhelpful? He called out Toastboy for using a metagame defense saying it makes him look like he's trying to put on a show of being a helpful townie. I asked why he felt that way about Toastboy but not Azrael, who did the same thing, and his answer was "vibe".
Or, since the primary reason I voted Toastboy was to elicit reactions, there wasn't much reason for me to continue voting him after I elicited reactions.
But I didn't screw up, I accomplished exactly what I set out to do. OK, not exactly. I didn't expect to take this much heat over it. But the point remains.
Why shouldn't I switch my vote back to the player I actually found suspicious?
Right. I'm going to pretend nothing happened. While responding to every point raised against me. At -3 to lynch. Makes sense.
That's not a "reverse implication", that's a literal opposite. You've just taken what I said and asserted I meant the exact opposite.
Huh, you want to analyze my reactions to your post, but go ahead and vote me anyway? I suddenly feel like I wasted my time here.
Well here's my reaction to your points: they are by and large convoluted, nonsensical, and fail to evaluate whether any of my explanations I already provided are reasonable responses to your suspicions. I also think the fact that you pushed the speedlynch idea is extremely suspicious. My biggest reservation against adding my vote to you over this is that you attacked me in pretty much the same manner in Harry Potter. Also, my reread of your other posts didn't leave me with strong feelings about you other than you don't seem to be commenting on anything except comments directed specifically towards you.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
See, I don't get the "bandwagoning for reactions" point. For one, it's clear that's what Az was doing. You doing the exact same thing would mean you'd have to interpret his as honest when it's the exact same as your dishonest vote - this is why I find it hard to believe your vote was dishonest. (Looking back, I think I screwed that up in the original quoted part. Sorry 'bout that.) My point is that you were honestly bandwagoning, but not for reactions, and the disconnect between the sarcastic vocal response and the honest active response suggests some dishonesty/disconnect - something I'd expect from a scum and not a townie.
I used this term because this is the term Az used in the post you quoted.
(also, I am so happy there's a facepalm smilie. That just makes my day)
I'm not arguing anything about the speed or the risk. Nothing in the above applies to my analysis of you.
Before arguing the real point, I want to point out the "it's one thing to X, but no one in his or her right mind would Y". This is several things: an appeal to reason (e.g. that form makes it sound like I'm questioning your integrity, the "no one in his or her right mind" suggests I'm not in my right mind, etc. etc. ad naus.). Very, very scummy, chap.
Another reason why this makes me confident in my scum tell is that it's impossible for me to respond to this argument - you're killing discussion. How about you explain why exactly "no one in his or her right mind and who has played any number of games on this site could possibly believe I was actually hoping TB would get lynched" and we'll go from there.
See, again, my point is that you did bandwagon, just that your bandwagoning wasn't for reactions and was disconnected from your sarcastic initial response to Az's comment.
But it isn't the beginning of the game - heck, someone's already called me on that. Maybe if everyone's DATBF, you're justified in starting a wagon, but even then, you have some rationale.
I will now present Xyre's Rule of Bandwagons: No town wagon ever starts artificially.
There's always a rationale somewhere. Take Az's play this game. He's been hounding me since the very first post I made, with varying success, but his wagon isn't artificial - it's based in evidence. If a wagon is ever formed without evidence, it's a scum wagon in some way or another.
And did you really justify doing scummy things? I can only interpret your sentence in two ways:
1) Doing scummy things is justified => scummy things are good, or
2) Doing scummy things is so common it's justified => argumentum ad populum.
Either way, your argument (and ensuing justification) is very, very suspect.
His comment is a bit rash, yeah, but that doesn't mean your comment wasn't scummy. Furthermore, I'd argue wagons aren't always necessary to start discussion - you can still get a dialogue going between two players that doesn't necessarily polarize the town or push them one way or the other but still creates progress. But that's a chat for the theory thread.
But why not say that? It seems like doing so costs you nothing - the ploy has failed, the ploy likely won't work again, and it prevents us from having to waste time on this discussion. And, again, I don't see this in your posts.
I feel like you're trying to ret-con this shaky vote-unvote into something altogether less scummy.
Okay, here are two questions:
1) What did you expect to gain from the fake vote? (Don't say "reactions", give me specifics. "Reactions" is the opposite of specifics.)
2) Why was that worth more than staying on your guy?
Hey, you tried to slip in the unvote at roughly the same point.
My point is that by saying "I support the Americans", you're implying "I oppose the Nazis", and it sounds a lot more diplomatic. If you're, to continue the metaphor, trying to fight the Nazis, you want all the support you can get - hence trying to bring in the people who support you, who also are likely to oppose those who attack you. Make sense?
Reactions was a bad word choice. I want to understand your arguments. Though you did make some reactions I noted above that unintentionally helped validate in my mind this process.
Half of the above is untrue. The other half you didn't respond to. What's wrong with my fake reaction/genuine action analysis, which I used not once but twice for you?
Furthermore, the blue line is highly suspect. One, it feels like you're trying to derail my credibility by attacking my behavior rather than addressing my points; two, what do you think this entire discussion was? I said I'd review, you asked me to follow up on it, I did, and when the results come back, you say I'm focusing on only myself? Huh?
tl;dr: Respond to my actual, rather than perceived points; your posting style is very suspect. Confirm Vote
As for Harry Potter, I got wrapped up in the emotional response and let that cloud my judgment. Here, I think I have a much more straightforward view. Even without my arguments, you've provided a whole trove of behavior tells that suggest you overplayed your hand and are now overreacting.
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
There are two options here: either you're scum and think you can push through a wagon on me and look townie doing so, or - just like in Harry Potter - rather than accept the errors in your arguments you'll continue to see every single thing I say as scummy, pile on crappy argument after crappy argument, creating a situation where either I get lynched or you do. Is that really what you want here, or are you going to stop and think?
It's not possible for Azrael to be joining a bandwagon for reactions when he started the wagon.
First of all, if it was "clear" Azrael was bandwagoning for reactions, then how on Earth does that lead to his vote meaning he honestly thought Toastboy was scum? You clearly and obviously contradict yourself in consecutive sentences. This is what I'm talking about: either you're intentionally throwing any argument you can think of at me, or you're not even bothering to think about what you're saying.
Secondly, if I decided to vote just for reactions, how does it follow that I must have believed Azrael genuinely thought Toastboy was scum?
Finally, if you believe my vote was genuine, what possible motivation would I have for saying otherwise? Sure it's WIFOM to say "If I were scum I never would admit to bandwagoning", but there's just no sensible explanation for why, as scum, I wouldn't just say "TB is scummy, so I voted him". If you've got one I'd love to hear it.
OK, fine. Then what, exactly, is my motivation as for obviously and admittedly bandwagoning other than what i've claimed?
I don't see what integrity has to do with it, but yes, on the assumption that you're town you're not in your right mind. No one in their right mind thinks someone is motivated by making an event happen that never happens.
How about the reason I already gave: it's practically impossible for it to actually happen. That's why it kills the argument: there is no arguing the point; it's just fact. Players don't get speedlynched. End of story. What would you like to say in response?
And this point, which you seem to build and entire case and opinion around, is nothing more than a gut read and offers absolutely zero explanations for my behavior. Whereas accepting I'm telling the truth about my motivation does.
So... are you saying my post wasn't at the beginning of the game? Toastboy's wagon wasn't the first wagon or the first major thing for anyone to comment on?
Or are you saying that it is not, now, the beginning of the game... so my earlier actions aren't justified now?
I just don't even get what you're saying.
K. What's you're point?
Then I'll attempt to make the logic more plain so that you get it. Intentionally doing something scummy for reactions in the early game is a common play from townies because it generates discussion. This doesn't make the behavior less scummy, but it makes the explanation 100% plausible. You can disbelieve the explanation if you choose, but you ought to have a sensible reason for doing so (for example, if TB was lynched and flipped town then you'd have a fair reason to think I actually was lying, which incidentally is why I made the comment about people going ape**** over my bandwagoning without knowing TB's alignment).
In short, if you don't have a logical explanation for a scum tell then you don't have a scum tell. If you have a logical explanation for a scum tell but an equally plausible pro-town explanation, then you've got a null tell.
Why didn't I explicitly point out I voted simply for reactions in the post where I unvoted? I wasn't particularly concerned with defending myself from the votes on me at the time, I was focusing on commenting on reactions.
And the ploy failed? There was no ploy, there was no clever trap, it was simply an action designed to elicit reactions. Which it did.
Once again, a gut reaction based on the fact that you just don't believe my motivation was to elicit reactions. Why don't you just own up to that instead of insisting on coming up with nonsense logic to back it up?
As I believe I've already said, I wasn't looking for any specific response and I think any reaction has potential information to be gleaned, just like analyzing the votes an a given wagon. Who voted for me over it, and for what reasons? Was it a straightforward vote or were extra reasons given? Were those extra reasons valid? What is the timing of the reactions? What is the tone of the reactions? Who disagreed with the voters and why? Who didn't comment at all? And so on.
Why would I forgoe a play that I think has value just to keep my vote where it is? It's not as if I was vehemently campaigning for kpaca's lynch only to suddenly switch my vote.
No, that's not what you said. You said that by saying I was interested in the players who defended me, I implied being interested in the players who attacked me. That's saying I said "I oppose the Nazis" but implied "I oppose the Americans". Maybe that's not what you meant, but that's what you said.
Because it's circular. In order for your gut calls of fake/genuine to make logical sense, you have to use assume the calls are correct. Otherwise, my actual explanation is more plausible in every way.
Bull. ****. I have addressed every one of your points.
Just because you're attacking me doesn't mean I'm not allowed to identify your own behavior issues.
I didn't say you only comment on posts about you, I said you only comment on posts directed at you. You comment on other people's behavior when someone prompts you to. This case is no exception.
Straightforward?
???
Your entire case on me boils down to you think I sarcastically supported TB's wagon but actually seriously supported it. Every one of your initial points boils roots in that. Every one of your points after that has taken absolutely everything I have said and paints it in a scummy light whether or not it makes the slightest lick of sense to do so.
You're view is anything but straightforward.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
Just answer me these questions:
1) Why did you phrase your response to Az ("I am so down with a stupidly fast day 1") the way you did? I'm especially curious about the "stupidly fast" part. That seems designed to deter voters, rather than attract them, and was part of the reason I deemed it sarcastic.
2) Why were you trying to get reactions at all? Slash did you expect/not expect reactions from Az's post which you quoted, which seemed to be the exact same thing as your post?
I have another question, probably, but I can't remember it. For now, the above will essentially resolve this matter for now. I may go look over your scum-games, but right now, Unvote.
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
a) I'm not a fan of reaction-getting posts, and I lump them in with most Cunning Plans. That's why I referred to it as a "ploy".
3) What reactions did you get? You mentioned Charm in 162, but that seemed to be the end of it, at least where those who subsequently voted you were concerned. Or was your point all along to get reactions from your defenders? If so, why didn't you say that, as you could have saved us a fair portion of the above grief?
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 think he may have been trying to draw attention away from Toastboy, and intended to simply shrug it off later.
He himself stated that he didn't think he'd draw this much fire over it.
So, right now, my picks for the scum team are Xyre, Kraj, and Toastboy.
I am happy with my vote on toast.
Vote: Xyre
I don't suspect him as much. Doesn't mean there aren't questions to be answered.
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
In fairness to Xyre-scum on this point, pretty much everything I do, even the way I present my suspicions, are calculated to produce reactions one way or another.
*glances at Phantom, wonders if he's growing a shadow*
Just to be clear, when you say "designed to deter voters, rather than attract them" you mean on Toastboy, correct? In that case, there was no such design; I had no intention of influencing whether people voted Toastboy or not, my point was to see how they would react to me.
I think the reason you read sarcasm in my tone is because I was being playful rather than giving a serious reason to back my vote.
I think a post that present arguments on a player and places an original vote is going to elicit very different reactions than a vote that puts a player at -3 to lynch without any reasons to support it.
Feel free:
1001 Nights - Mafia - Lynched day 7.
Final Fantasy - Mafia - Unilaterally vigged night 4.
Smalltown - Mafia - Lynched on last day.
Fairy Tale - Mafia - Survived and won.
Persona - Mafia - Bus driver redirected cop investigation onto me night 2.
Newbie 15 - SK - Lynched day 2.
Dictionary - SK - Lynched on last day.
I also talked about Phantom in that same post (and at least once since as well). I've also mentioned points at various times, but I think this is a fair question because I haven't given a plain rundown of what I gleaned.
1. Abandon Hope - Completely ignored my vote and the votes on me in favor of focusing on Toastboy. Neutral read here; could be simple playstyle, could be he perceived trouble and wanted to steer clear, could be he considered it nothing more than an annoying distraction, could be he recognized what I was up to and was looking at reactions. No way to tell.
2. Azrael - I expected a town Azrael to recognize what I was doing and either sit back and watch or react to the reactions. I expected a scum Azrael to maneuver his way into attacking me for it. He did the former and then he did the latter. In looking at his arguments, though, I didn't find much of anything to suggest his attack was unreasonable or dishonest. I think the sum of his reactions leans town.
3. Charm_Master3125 - This was by far the scummiest reaction (as was his vote on Skander). He makes no opinion on Toastboy's behavior, nor does he say the reasons people are voting him are bad or call me out on bandwagoning, but he's suspicious just of the speed of the wagon. This is classic mafia hedge-betting: wag your finger at a wagon on a townie while leaving yourself open to join it later once you decide there are good reasons.
He repeats this all again in 176 (still not bothering to form an opinion on Toastboy), and pushes the "fear of a speedlynch" explanation, which is complete bull. When Xyre said he was simply using the term 'speedlynch, because Azrael used it, I can believe it because Xyre's actual arguments don't revolve around fear of a speed lynch. But Charm Master's do.
4. ChrisXIV - Initial vote on me was ironically bandwagony, but ultimately I think his reaction was similar to PhantomS'. Leaning town.
5. kpaca - He actually voted for me over my follow-up post, not my vote, so I'll focus on his actual reaction to my vote/voters. That was post 146 where he responds to Azrael's switch from Toast to Xyre by saying Netfinity is a better suspect than Xyre or "even" Kraj. What I note here is that kpaca makes no opinion at all of my vote, or of the people who voted me, or of Netfinity who defended me, or anything. What he does do is indirectly imply that my wagon is valid. Very scummy.
7. Netfinity - Normally townies are interested in hearing a player's response to attacks before speaking his own opinion. Quickly coming to a player's defense might mean he's looking to be on the right side of a mislynch. In this specific case, he might have also wanted to defend me because I was attacking his primary attacker. However, in post 81 he says Xyre is suspicious for defending WoD and in post 108 he says Toast is supicious for defending Chris. Though I find Net's defense of me suspicious, I have a hard time seeing a scum making the same tell that he is so obviously aware of as to call other players out on.
8. PhantomS - As I said before, he reacted exactly as I suspected a townie would. He saw a classic scum tell, placed a vote over it, 'nuff said.
9. Skander - Didn't react at all. Like AH, who knows why that might be? It's possible it was because he was focused on fending off attacks on himself. Neutral reaction.
10. Xyre - Also made no direct reaction until prompted to. Consistent with that pattern of behavior I noted. No real conclusion to be made here. Neutral.
11. Toastboy - His reactions strike me as genuine. First he says he finds my vote suspicious, and says he didn't like how I "attacked people for mindlessly agreeing Azrael, before following his vote with no reasoning of his own." It's not a particularly good argument seeing as how the
All in all, Toastboy's reactions look like an genuine attempt to figure the situation out.
12. Wrath_of_Dog - No reaction. Neutral read, like the other non-reactors.
As I've said multiple times, I didn't do it looking for certain reactions. I wasn't just interested in who voted me, or just who defended me, or just who didn't say anything at all, etc.
K, so your read on the situation is that my plan was to instill doubt in Toastboy's wagon by acting suspicious and therefore make other player's go "gee, look how awful that wagon is"? Wow, that's incedibly subtle. I'm going to have to remember that one next time I'm scum.
But this brings me 'round to my point on bandwagoning. If TB dies and flips scum, then you might have something. But logic that relies on my being TB's scumbuddy without knowing whether TB is scum is just convoluted nonsense compared to the much more plausible explanation that I'm simply telling the truth. Occam's Razor, here.
Why Xyre?
You have a point, be he also prefaced his argument with the fact that he didn't take my responses to Azrael into consideration yet.
As far as Xyre goes, if people are going to vote him I'd like to see something more substantial behind it than "his arguments come across as scummy". I've played at least two games with him where as town he made scummy-sounding arguments, then sounded scummy in his defense, dug himself into a big ol' hole, and got lynched. I'd rather not see that repeated. As frustrating as I found his arguments to be, I didn't really get a sense that he was intentionally twisting things around; I think he genuinely held the point of view he expressed. Further, after cutting through all the crap he backs off a bit but follows through with some good questions. That looks townie to me.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
We're voting for the same person, but I assure you the reasons are different.
This is fair. I'm about to head to work, and have a busy few days, but when i get a bit of time I will go back and read again. I don't like backing off on something like this based on meta so my vote will hold until I find something more substantial to place a vote for.
Xyre - 2 (Az, PhantomS)
Toastboy - 2 (WoD, Skander)
kpaca - 2 (Toastboy, Kraj)
Kraj - 1 (kpaca)
Chris - 1 (Netfinity)
7 to lynch
There's been a bunch of vote-switching going on, so I figured I'd throw this up.
MTGS stats (won/played)
As scum - 3/5
As town - 5/7
As neutral - none
(I really have been scum a lot)
I'm now writing for Eye of the Vortex, come check out MTG articles and other geek culture
I also moderate the MTG forum, so register (it's free) and voice your thoughts.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
Yeah. What bugged me a bit about it was it seemed like your reaction play was less a "try to get people to wagon and nail them" play and more a "post something unconventional, see what happens" play. The latter isn't really my thing, though I can understand how you set it up now.
Sarcastic, playful - it's all the same when you're talking in terms of genuineness.
I'm going to go back and consider the reactions in relation to the posts of the players in question.
Very likely town
2. Azrael
5. kpaca
12. Wrath_of_Dog (at least for now)
Leaning town
6. Kraj (I understand his approach more, though it's not the technique I'd have used, and I like the reactions)
4. ChrisXIV
1. Abandon Hope (lurking like a madman, per usual; needs to contribute. The least solid of this group)
No idea (need reviews of these people first)
3. Charm_Master3125 (He hasn't really made an impression on me, though my hunch right now is townish)
8. PhantomS (He's contributing and making useful points, but if there's anyone who's riding on Az's coattails, it would probably be him)
Leaning scum (no change here)
7. Netfinity
9. Skander
11. Toastboy
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
12: Random post, maybe? I recognize the quote, and there's only one case I can think of where this would make sense as a scum tell, and that seems like something CM would never do... but it still feels rather referential, considering neither of them had posted prior in the game. Unless there's an inside joke I'm missing?
16 and 18: Thought this was a strange choice of smilies, until I remembered the smilie-code. (for the uninitiated)
22: Latter line is townish.
111 and 112: After vanishing for a bit, he's the first person to hop on the accelerating Toastboy wagon. I think his response to Kraj's post is genuine, especially in conjunction with the vote on Skander immediately preceding it.
119: Ah, that phrase that always sends me up a wall: "good townie play". It also bothers me that he doesn't at all comment on the bandwagon he just started (intentionally or not) on Kraj, especially in this context. Bottom line is the guy doesn't seem to be giving out much - he only has two posts left, and we're only on page 3.
172: Unvotes, apparently in response to Kraj's unvote, which is bothersome. He's speaking (in the first line) entirely in past tense, as if Kraj's suspiciousness suddenly evaporated as soon as he stopped applying pressure. This to me suggests two approaches by CM: either he really doesn't care about chasing scum too much, or he was just latching onto a target of convenience. Only the latter is scum, though, and his lurking to me suggests the former more. Doesn't say a single thing about Kraj, or his responses, viz. why they make sense, which is bothersome.
176: Pretty much a rehash of previous points. Definitely sidesteps AH's question.
Summary: Lurking hard. In retrospect, I think I've given him more credit than he deserves. Now leaning slightly scum.
Charm: Give me your top three town and top three scum. Don't need to be in any particular order, but I want rationales.
I'll get to PhantomS later.
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
Abandon Hope
Charm Master
Netfinity
I have the same very likely town list as Xyre (Az, kpaca, WoD).
Re the Xyre/Kraj stuff. These kind of long arguments back and forth lose me fast so I'm glad that it didn't turn into something that derailed the thread. I don't think either one comes badly out of it. I can easily see Kraj's TB vote as a gambit.
Xyre: Still? I thought you saw where I was coming from - or did I misinterpret a post of yours?
What do each of you think about my analysis of kpaca?
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
kpaca should probably be answering that but I don't think it's that far out of normal kpaca levels.
Nah. I meant that you should be answering the point that he brought against you.
However, I will give you some insight. Kraj's vote seemed too blatantly stupid of a misstep for a player of his caliber to actually be doing as scum, as such I figured it was a gambit. What gave me pause was his attack of me, which has been previously covered by Az (charged language, etc). As such, I voted accordingly, as he didn't seem to be exhibiting a townie attitude. As for not commenting on the players switching their votes, they were on a wagon I supported, so I obviously didn't openly question them. I have indeed watched the votes and reactions to Kraj's play, but as I've said and as you know, I keep these sort of thoughts to myself much of the time.
Yup. Still town.
I think the rest of his posts have been very sound, and he's contributing a great deal. I think the "even Kraj" point was less a consideration of your scumminess and more recognition of the votes on you, though it does strike me as a bit odd.
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
A and B are mutually exclusive: you can't have originally thought of the point and had forgotten to post it, and also have just had the same point occur to you. However, I can see how what I meant by point A could be easily misinterpreted. I'm going to take "the point just occurred to me" as your answer since you explicitly stated it. And I've already explained why I find this scummy:
What is the point of voting like this?
I think this brings an interesting point to the table. Azrael, as I've read in other games as well, has a tendency to wait and evaluate players based on reactions. But he didn't do so when Xyre attacked Skander. He responded to the attack before Skander had anything to say for himself (and later Skander seemed to be hiding behind that defense). By doing this, he implicitly assumes Skander's towniness and is not actually interested in reading him as it seems he wants us to think. But then this brings into question why he waited for reactions in the Kraj incident (if I may call it that). My answer is exactly what he was accusing Kraj of doing: "he was already planning on using it to launch counter-strikes; regardless of the style in which people attacked him." in that Azrael was going to use the results of Kraj's "gambit" to stage an attack. What helped me reach this conclusion was his seemingly forced attack on Kraj:
Overall, I feel that Az's attack on Kraj was quite forced. The opening line I think betrayed Az's intentions and I feel like add had to add unnecessary things to make the case seem better.
Unvote, Vote Azrael.
I find the following players suspicious:
Charm_Master3125- He hasn't been saying much and seems to be circumventing major discussion topics: specifically with his vote on Skander and then Kraj where he votes them for the mere speed of the wagon and neglects to comment on the validity of the wagon itself.
ChrisXIV- I think I've already made myself clear here.
Azrael- Look above.
I'll put together my thoughts on all of the players later; I'm quite hungry right now.
sure thing boss.
Town:
Azrael - From my play experience he's coming off as he usually does as town: rallying the town with sound logic and attacking weaknesses he sees. As scum he tends to be much more laid back and try to be less of a target.
Kpaca - I haven't developed a read on how he plays but he seems to be asking the right questions and not taking anything for granted. makes sense from someone who has very limited information
Skander: even though he put a 3rd vote on the early toast wagon he has explained what he did and has been going after real discrepancies in people's behaviors, not just taking pot-shots in the dark.
scum:
Kraj: Skander is relatively new to the game as far as I can see; kraj has been here much longer and dropped a 4th vote on a very early wagon based on very little evidence. I would like to think that me questioning the wagon's speed cut things off from a premature lynch (because that would mean I actually *did* something)
Netfinity: He reminds me of myself in several of my other games as scum (tales coming to mind). post very rarely, enough to not get prodded but not enough that anyone pays any attention to your posts. a very lurk-in-plain-sight vibe.
WoD: very much lurking, I forgot he was playing until chris mentioned him. He doesn't seem to be the kind to lurk much from what I recall.
and as a bonus, explaining my 12: my vote/comment was just in repsonse to the fact that he recently declined a trade offer I made. the spin on the quote just felt appropos.
Currently Playing:
GBStandard - Golgari Safari MidrangeBG
RBWModern - Mardu PyromancerWBR
RLegacy - Good Old Fashioned BurnR
Clan Contest 3 Mafia - Mafia Co-MVP
Was Toastboy's wagon valid?
Why is this reasoning only coming up now? What did you think when you originally voted me?
I thought the exact same thing. statistically speaking, 3rd and 4th votes of wagons (especially early ones) are more likely to be from scum. you put a third vote on toast, turning a collection of random votes into a wagon. that's scummy. Kraj, who should know better, went and added a fourth vote to the wagon. I looked at the posted vote count and voted you based on the 3rd vote, then realized kraj put another one on. He was much more deserving of pressure in that instance.
Currently Playing:
GBStandard - Golgari Safari MidrangeBG
RBWModern - Mardu PyromancerWBR
RLegacy - Good Old Fashioned BurnR
Clan Contest 3 Mafia - Mafia Co-MVP
You diffrentiated me from Kraj by saying I was newer but Kraj as a more experienced player should be held more accountable. Why are you giving me a pass now as opposed to before?
also, due to unforeseen circumstances, I'm sadly requesting immediate replacement. my internet access is being stripped and I cannot guarantee any posting more than once a week. I really hoped it would not have come to this but that's all I can do.
Currently Playing:
GBStandard - Golgari Safari MidrangeBG
RBWModern - Mardu PyromancerWBR
RLegacy - Good Old Fashioned BurnR
Clan Contest 3 Mafia - Mafia Co-MVP
Xyre - 3 (Az, PhantomS, Toastboy)
Toastboy - 2 (WoD, Skander)
kpaca - 2 (Toastboy, Kraj)
Azrael - 1 (Netfinity)
7 to lynch
I'll get on looking for a CM replacement.
MTGS stats (won/played)
As scum - 3/5
As town - 5/7
As neutral - none
(I really have been scum a lot)
I'm now writing for Eye of the Vortex, come check out MTG articles and other geek culture
I also moderate the MTG forum, so register (it's free) and voice your thoughts.
Vote: Wrath of Dog.
This is obvious to me. I challenge people to look at his town games, then look at his scum games. This game is close to one, not the other.
In case it wasn't obvious, I'm not actually using eenie meenie minie moe there.
In case you're asking why I'm voting and unvoting back to back, it's because I'm wavering on the validity of our wagons.
When I'm interested in reading a player, I do tend to wait for reactions.
When I have a strong town read on a player, as I mentioned I had with Skander, I'll tend to weigh in against a dubious attack against them whether they've responded personally or not.
Yes, abandoning my read is precisely the correct connotation. I no longer trusted it because it was a tenative read, and by that time was outweighed by more substantive actions.
I mention sarcasm because it can be one of the components of a scum-like response; especially one in which they're attempting to belittle the attacks against them.
Strong language is standard operating procedure for me when I'm launching an initial pressure vote. If a player doesn't take the pressure seriously, their reactions are less likely to be useful.
Just for the record...that's completely false.
:irony:
Also, :bus: .