My post said what it needed to say. Obviously, considering your response(which was fairly hypocritical).
I mean honestly. You post nothing for 5 days, then come in and have nothing to add but to add your vote onto the most popular wagon for the moment? Based on an erronously used term. Have you ever actually seen someone make an error like that and be scum? I sincerely doubt it.
My post said what it needed to say. Obviously, considering your response(which was fairly hypocritical).
I mean honestly. You post nothing for 5 days, then come in and have nothing to add but to add your vote onto the most popular wagon for the moment? Based on an erronously used term. Have you ever actually seen someone make an error like that and be scum? I sincerely doubt it.
A) PhantomS isn't the most popular wagon, AH is.
B) I can't recall seeing that happen. The point is that he said either Kraj or Az was scum based on their interactions. Then when asked for a specific example, he cited a reason for them being scumbuddies. This does not compute. I believe he made up the scumbuddy reason after being pressed for an example and forgot that he had said "either or" beforehand and was just looking for any old reason.
I mean it's a pretty big difference between two players being scumbuddies and 1 being scum and 1 being town based on their interactions. I find it very dubious that the two could be mixed up.
If you and Az are scum then it is true that you or Az is scum.
It seems he is aware of his post but doesn't immediately bactrack until he realizes later that he can't defend against it.
If he wasn't thinking of his original either or post when he wrote this, there would be no reason for him to say anything other than "Huh? I think you're both scum, where did I say otherwise?" He is acknowleding Kraj's issue but tries to defend against it. Only later does he backtrack.
@ Skander and Kraj- Just what would I stand to gain if this were not simply me misspeaking?
And all the evidence you needed to vote was for me to state either/or instead of and/or like I meant?
Sounds to me like you're just looking for a wagon what you think might move. vote: Skander
FoS: Kraj pending him answering the above question.
You don't gain anything, because this wasn't on purpose - it was a mistake, obviously you didn't mean to do it. You started a fake opinion one way, and then when asked for specifics you forgot what you wrote and went the other way.
Explain this post for me please:
Originally Posted by PhantomS If you and Az are scum then it is true that you or Az is scum.
You don't gain anything, because this wasn't on purpose - it was a mistake, obviously you didn't mean to do it. You started a fake opinion one way, and then when asked for specifics you forgot what you wrote and went the other way.
I wrote the wrong thing. Even if that were the case how would that by scummy?
Explain this post for me please:
At the time I thought that I had posted "Kraj or Az" and not "either Kraj or Az" and I didn't check back because that's what I thought I wrote because that's my actual belief- that one or both are scum.
I wrote the wrong thing. Even if that were the case how would that by scummy?
[quote]
I just explained that. You did not believe the suspicion that you stated. You were making it up to make it seem like you had opinions.
At the time I thought that I had posted "Kraj or Az" and not "either Kraj or Az" and I didn't check back because that's what I thought I wrote because that's my actual belief- that one or both are scum.
That doesn't really change anything.
If you had said:
I have a gut feeling that Kraj or Az are scum based on their interactions. Can't really elaborate too much on this, but you asked for a list.
It would still be a problem. You didn't say that both of them are scum, you said one of them is scum. And then later you say they are scumbuddies - making them both scum.
And now you say your belief is that one or both are scum. Never mind the fact that it doesn't jive with what you've said, how does it make sense? Your argument is for them being scumbuddies. How can only one of them be scum according to you?
I made up that I had an opinion? Well, hey, you're trying buddy.
Sure. Don't bother with the facts that point against you or the question I've just asked you but you obviously can't answer so you feel the need to direct attention elsewhere.
Let's try again.
When pressed for a scum list you said that either Kraj or Az was scum. From the fact that later posts don't line up with your supposed mindset it is obvious that you made the original opinion up to satisfy DYH's request for a scumlist.
Let me ask you again: You just said that one or both of Kraj and Az is scum. How can only one of them be scum according to your scumbuddy theory?
You've got to be kidding me. I just went back and explained why you made up your opinion. I can't believe you asked that question. It's what scum do - make up opinions.
596 and 597 is a big one, and I assume what you're referring to as well. The two read as chummy, but in a very awkward manner. Neither seems to be actually pursuing the other but it reads like they both feel that jabbing the other is appropriate for some reason. It just seems off. I wish I could articulate this line of thought better.
I was looking over and trying to articulate myself better, and all I can really say is I read something of a virulent chumyness. The nature of such a thing is necessarily something that I cannot prove, so as of now it's a hunch at best.
It's really cute that you think you know what I did better than I do. You get to keep my vote.
What you have there are two premises that don't necessarily lead to one conclusion. You only think it goes one way because you're using chumyness as a synonym for scum-buddiness while ignoring the context entirely.
I get the idea that they feel some inclination to lynch the other, which could mean one, the other or both are scum.
Also, now it seems like your argument is that I have a scum-buddy theory and that is scummy... I don't get it big Dan.
Can't make up my mind here. Phantom's defense is essentially calling a tell not a tell; but at the same time, I get the impression he's genuinely confused as to what the problem is.
I agree with pretty much everything Skander is saying, but he's also pressing the issue really strongly. Phantom's "slip up" could be just that, but it's nowhere near as conclusive as Skander is treating it.
Unvote
Dunno what to think at the moment.
Oh, and Zasz's logic is just nonsense. Town don't ask questions leading towards a conclusion? Not to mention, why vote Skander apparently over his push on Phantom and not say a thing about it?
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.
PhantomS claims to have misspoken, yet Kraj thinks PhantomS doesn't understand what the problem is? Aren't these two things rather incompatible?
PhantomS votes Skander and FoSes Kraj after they attack him. Forgive me for using an over-used term, here, but that post was the very definition of OMGUS.
He again downplays any attack on him and reverts to condescending tones and names to do it (boss, champ, etc.).
And the reaction by the two of them is to... unvote?
PhantomS claims to have misspoken, yet Kraj thinks PhantomS doesn't understand what the problem is? Aren't these two things rather incompatible?
PhantomS votes Skander and FoSes Kraj after they attack him. Forgive me for using an over-used term, here, but that post was the very definition of OMGUS.
He again downplays any attack on him and reverts to condescending tones and names to do it (boss, champ, etc.).
And the reaction by the two of them is to... unvote?
I am thoroughly confused.
@mod: Can we get a prod on Azrael?
I'm a bit confused myself, but I disagree with the bold. I see the logic to Kraj's point.
They do. They just aim for a conclusion that is not reaching to get a case into motion on what they likely conceive as a soft target.
If the vote by Skander alone based on the post is enough to make me vote him, don't you consider it reasonable that someone who votes for the same reason and also set up the post is at least equally dubious in my eyes?
If the conclusion is scummy, then the build up should get some attention, too.
And yet at this point you still haven't bothered to explain what was dubious or scummy about the point we both made. The closest you've gotten is to say it's because PhantomS is a soft target. Given the state this game is in, I'd be interested to hear who you think isn't a soft target.
Me? Don't see the necessity in repeating Cyan's point - as the post hinted at I felt the post immediately scummy i. e. felt the same way as the other person immediately reacting.
Interesting. So basically, you engaged in the same behavior you found suspicious from Skander. Cyan accused him of opportunism, and you consider Phantom to be a soft target, yet you make an equally opportunistic vote on an equally (if not moreso) soft target.
Vote: ZasZ
Going back to my read of Charm and andelijah, as I no longer have any good vibes from him.
Also for a point you specifically worked towards it didn't hold much, Kraj, if you are already unvoting now that you can't ride on another person's wind.
You know, I already pointed out myself that the point didn't hold much. But "ride another person's wind"? Are you joking? You already acknowledged it was my questions that lead Skander into voting Phantom, not the other way around. And if I just wanted to barn someone/borrow someone's townie cred, why the hell would I pick Skander? Your accusations have no logic behind them.
PhantomS claims to have misspoken, yet Kraj thinks PhantomS doesn't understand what the problem is? Aren't these two things rather incompatible?
Not really. I think PhantomS believes claiming to misspeak is an adequate defense; a person would be genuinely confused about why their reason isn't accepted when they are telling the truth. Of course, that hinges on whether Phantom's confusing is genuine, but that's my read.
PhantomS votes Skander and FoSes Kraj after they attack him. Forgive me for using an over-used term, here, but that post was the very definition of OMGUS.
I agree. But if I may be so bold, OMGUS is such a widely known tell that these days I think townies are more likely to blatantly engage in it. It's the more subtle kinds of OMGUS that scum tend to employ.
It bothers me that you attack ZasZ on the assumption that he's doing the former rather than he's a townie who thinks you did the latter; without additional points to make a pattern, it's WIFOM. But you immediately take a swing at him, and by doing so pre-emptively discredit whatever case he may make on you. You could be 100% sincere in your analysis, but I'm nowhere near confident you're town.
On that note, I'm interested in why Charmandaz has climbed your suspicious list. I seem to recall you had very little support for my myriad of points on andelijah and charm master.
I'm suspicious of Zasz (and maybe AH) pulling that because so very few people were willing to launch counterattacks yesterday. If the wagon was as utterly wrongheaded as Zasz and AH assert, we should have seen the counter-wagon against me yesterday, not today. If an argument is poor, you don't need the ultimate results before you spearhead a charge against a player for it.
My reasons for Charmandez climbing the list are that while I don't see much reliable substance in your case, neither of the predecessor players provided pro-town tells, and I've already begun detailing my suspicions of their successor.
@Az: Since many of us blacked out on what Xyre and you were saying yeaterday, could you restate the points you agreed upon against Cyan, please?
---
Sorry for appearing to be so inattentive, I swear it's not true.
greetings
Z
I linked to Xyre's PBPA on Netfinity earlier today. At the time, my agreement was a general, blanket approval. I can probably reemphasize the important points sometime later, but I can't recall disagreeing with any of the points he raised there.
Your point is either based on an easy to make wording error or on a misrepresentation of what PhantomS meant - I can't tell, since you never formulated it yourself, but both paths are suspect.
So if I take what he wrote literally, then I'm either misrepresenting what he meant, or attacking him for a slip-up that's not conclusively scummy. The former is b.s. because actually he'd be the one who misrepresented what he meant by misspeaking. The latter is not even a scum tell in any way. I saw something I considered a possible slip-up, voted him over it, and you're treating it as if I've been non-stop campaigning for his death over it. I can't tell if your attack on me is contrived or just horribly ill-conceived, but considering my suspecions of your predecessors I'm going with the former.
Nice dodge. I'll repeat: who in the game do you think is not a soft target at this point? Who is not a player whom is easy to launch an attack against?
upon re-read it becomes obvious that it was me pointing out the mistake leads to the comment that is contradictory to Skander
Lol! You're right about that. You actually pointed out his contradiction before I or Skander did. You contributed to what was obviously a forming attack based on perceived contradiction, and now you're suspicious of the people who actually made the attack instead of you who indirectly supported it.
That is priceless. Happy with my vote.
@Azrael: That makes some sense but can that logic really apply to a player who just entered the game? Plus, wouldn't it be a natural townie reaction to be suspicious of a player who pushed hard on a townie even if they had agreed with the wagon?
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.
@Azrael: That makes some sense but can that logic really apply to a player who just entered the game? Plus, wouldn't it be a natural townie reaction to be suspicious of a player who pushed hard on a townie even if they had agreed with the wagon?
Within these circumstances, no, I don't think so. The Xyre wagon wasn't slipshod; it was exhaustively researched with a level of detail that most players found too daunting.
Call it a dreadnought? Sure. But the Xyre wagon had more thought and dialogue put into it than most successful townie wagons, and painting it as some kind of travesty against good mafia play is a fairly colored read. Perhaps an opportunistic one.
RE: your latter point, my issue is not so much with natural paranoid suspicions of being led around by the nose (like AH's?), but with a style of attack that seems calculated to inflame the town to a retaliatory mislynch (like Zasz?).
You think I'm heckling? Quit being evasive. If you can articulate your suspicions, do so. Or admit you cannot and you had nothing. In fact, I'd like to see your top three suspects and WHY you suspect them.
If you thought someone was scum, and I also supported the idea without giving reasons, would that invalidate your position? Not that I haven't given reasons. You're just having trouble with the idea that I'm not going to go back and quote a bunch of people in a post of doom.
Quote from Azrael »
Call it a dreadnought? Sure. But the Xyre wagon had more thought and dialogue put into it than most successful townie wagons, and painting it as some kind of travesty against good mafia play is a fairly colored read. Perhaps an opportunistic one.
Overposting, or research as it is called these days, is anyone's weapon. It was a mislynch, and considering the grounds and what Xyre actually got lynched for, its more than plausible that the mafia were very, very involved.
If you thought someone was scum, and I also supported the idea without giving reasons, would that invalidate your position? Not that I haven't given reasons. You're just having trouble with the idea that I'm not going to go back and quote a bunch of people in a post of doom.
Overposting, or research as it is called these days, is anyone's weapon. It was a mislynch,
Granted, but the critical part of your post is this:
Quote from Abandon Hope »
and considering the grounds and what Xyre actually got lynched for, its more than plausible that the mafia were very, very involved.
What were the grounds that he was lynched for in your mind, and which of those grounds make it seems so plausible that there was mafia involvement? What was the fatal flaw, and if you can see it so clearly in hindsight, then why not yesterday?
In sum, Xyre identified a pretty fair number of voting rationale problems with his attacks on Chris, WoD, his Toastboy defenses, folding his arguments without much of a fight, and some interesting instances of hypocritical reasoning.
EBWODP: Nevermind Cyan, you already answered my question.
I agree with Skander's analysis, which should be obvious since it was my questions that were leading in that direction.
Unvote, Vote: PhantomS
OK, just reread the last couple of pages to figure out what was going on with Phantom-gate.
This vote is horrible, as Cyan pointed out. The wording wasn't a valid tell. But he completely piggybacks on that single point.
Beyond that, I'm not a fan of how Kraj tentatively dipped his feet in the water with a question for Cyan, then goes for the vote after thinking it over a little more. On the same information that was already there when he posed his questions.
Between this and the "bandwagoning is good" vote from earlier, Kraj's voting history has had more weird overextensions than a townie usually shows. Vote Kraj.
I'm also still intrigued by that joke-recipe for creating Lylo that he gave us.
Can't make up my mind here. Phantom's defense is essentially calling a tell not a tell; but at the same time, I get the impression he's genuinely confused as to what the problem is.
I agree with pretty much everything Skander is saying, but he's also pressing the issue really strongly. Phantom's "slip up" could be just that, but it's nowhere near as conclusive as Skander is treating it.
Unvote
Dunno what to think at the moment.
Oh, and Zasz's logic is just nonsense. Town don't ask questions leading towards a conclusion? Not to mention, why vote Skander apparently over his push on Phantom and not say a thing about it?
Don't like the "dunno what to think at the moment" statement. Superfluous, reads like stage acting. And then, he responds to Zasz's weak attack, and never really engages with the stronger points from Cyan.
Misspoke (ZOMG, scum tell). That entire last post sounds like a faked position.
There shouldn't be anything hugely confusing about what just happened. And I find it hard to believe Kraj is trying to work his way through some complex dichotomy of Skander vs. Phantom. If you genuinely bought the grounds for the attack, then why are you suspicious of Skander for pushing it so strongly?
@Kraj: I understand your point on his reaction now. Have any thoughts on this part yet?
Yes. I see what you're talking about but it reinforces my read that he's genuinely confused as to why he's being attacked. He's being condescending because he thinks Skander is being an idiot and he's annoyed that his attempts to explain himself have been unsuccessful. At least that's how it looks to me. It's possible that he's intentionally doing it but I have a hard time seeing a scum smugly making a defense that is so obviously wrong. To me, it looks like the actions of a player who's never played scum.
I repeat: You have not yet formulated your reasoning yourself. I would have appreciated if you had done it by now.
If there was anything to say that Skander hadn't already, I would have. This is not a case of me saying "I think so and so is scum" and not explaining why. This is a case of a player making a tell and me voting over it. You're all bothered because I didn't yet go into detail about why the tell is a tell, which is ridiculous. Normally in this case I'd oblige going through the facts and the logic, but a.) I've already done so and lost it and I don't feel like doing it again, b.) I don't think the point is worth continuing to persue Phantom over, c.) you're the only one who seems particularly bothered by my actions and your attack is, well it doesn't exactly make me feel like I'm in danger, d.) I think you're scum. So, I'm just not going to detail it all out just to defend myself from you.
At this point I'd be second-guessing myself as to whether I find you scummy simply for using awful logic, but considering my suspicions of Charm Master and andelijah, I think you're scum using awful logic.
You say my suspicion over PS being voted over an easy to make wording error is b. s., because it equals to PS commiting misrepresentation.
Then you go on and say misrepresentation is not even a scum tell.
Please familiarize yourself with the terms "former" and "latter" and reread my statement.
The point is not that you are nonstop campaigning or anything - actually you let Skander do that and sitting at the sideline. Otherwise I would have your argumentation chain by now.
That's false. It was my point of analysis that started the push on Phantom:
Interesting. That sounds like the type of read that would lead you to think we're scum buddies, not one or the other.
Skander picked up on my logic and laid out the analysis. There wasn't anything else to say. Phantom contradicted himself; that is a fact. Whether you accept it is because he misspoke or because he didn't actually believe his point is up to you. All Skander did that I didn't do was argue with Phantom about whether his contradiction is actually a tell.
Nice dodge. I'll repeat: What has changed about the "vibes"?
Lol, what was there to dodge? Let's ignore where I said I agreed with Azrael's read on you, because I also implicitly defended you by questioning his motives. I pointed out a comment I didn't like of your's in defense of AH. I commented that you attacked me with nonsense logic, and also that you voted Skander without any comment whatsoever (a far worse example of the behavior you're calling me scummy over). I then point out more behaviors I find suspicious from you, and are confused as to where the good "vibe" went. And you accuse me of OMGUSing you because you "got too close", after I've made it pretty clear I think your attacks are full of nonsense. It was funny.
Yes, I pointed out the contradiction, which obviously was just a person typing "either/or" when they meant "or" - and then I let the issue rest, because it appears to be a genuine innocent mistake.
[...]
Also I cannot agree withg "obviously a forming attack", because to me it wasn't; to me it was "obviously pointing out a mistake" in an attempt to clarify that my hypothesis is not - as I first assumed - the same as the one of PhantomS.
If I wanted to go into the logic problems here I would, but I don't think it's a strong enough point to be worth it. Suffice to say, I'm not convinced you were simply interested in clearing up an innocent misunderstanding.
Since I discarded the option of malice so easily everyone who insists on seeing more than that in it naturally earns my suspicion.
OK, I can see basing suspicion on that. (Sort of. I don't see how malice has anything to do with the situation.) Voting and launching a full-scale attack simply because you don't agree with the opposite point of view when you clearly recognized it, however, looks an awful lot like taking the opportunity to make a quick vote without drawing much flak for it.
Oh, more fun with Azrael. May I borrow a page from Seppel's book?: I'm town. If you are town, I'm telling you now that you're reading me wrong. Fix it.
Incidentally, the last time I made such a remark to you, I was town and you were scum. *chin scratch*
Beyond that, I'm not a fan of how Kraj tentatively dipped his feet in the water with a question for Cyan, then goes for the vote after thinking it over a little more. On the same information that was already there when he posed his questions.
Fine, where's the scum tell? What does a scum gain by asking a player to clarify before voting if he's going to disregard that player's opinion in his vote?
Did you find the question out of line? Was it unreasonable to ask Cyan to comment on the validity of the point?
I'm also still intrigued by that joke-recipe for creating Lylo that he gave us.
The funny thing about that recipie for creating lylo is that it only holds true if "Town Azrael" is an ingredient. Tell ya what, how about we lynch me and then if I'm town and you're alive tomorrow, we lynch you?
Don't like the "dunno what to think at the moment" statement. Superfluous, reads like stage acting. And then, he responds to Zasz's weak attack, and never really engages with the stronger points from Cyan.
Cyan made points? Could you direct me to them, please?
And I find it hard to believe Kraj is trying to work his way through some complex dichotomy of Skander vs. Phantom. If you genuinely bought the grounds for the attack, then why are you suspicious of Skander for pushing it so strongly?
*ahem* I didn't "buy" the grounds for the attack, I formulated them. I'm getting annoyed at repeatedly being accused of coattailing Skander. The reason I'm suspicious of Skander for running away with the point so strongly is same reason I didn't run away with the point so strongly: it's not that strong of a point. It's something suspicious worthy of applying pressure and seeing what the response is. It's not some case-closed obvscumtell, and Skander was pushing it like it is. Not to mention he did so knowing he'd have my support.
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 actually was a case-closed scumtell the way I was reading it.
I had thought PhantomS pushed the scumbuddying accusation himself. If so there is no way that "either" was a slip-up. It would be the complete opposite of what he was trying to say (saying both of them scum and not one and directly contradicting it by saying one is scum and one is not; not both). You do not make a mistake saying the complete opposite of what you meant to say (unless of course we're talking about missing out a "not" or something of the sort).
The way things actually are however, it's possible that PhantomS only misspoke (saying only one of them are scum and then saying one or both are scum). That's not a huge suspension of disbelief.
May I borrow a page from Seppel's book?: I'm town.
Quote from Kraj »
Incidentally, the last time I made such a remark to you, I was town and you were scum. *chin scratch*
Quote from Kraj »
Cyan made points? Could you direct me to them, please?
Quote from Cyan »
I mean honestly. You post nothing for 5 days, then come in and have nothing to add but to add your vote onto the most popular wagon for the moment? Based on an erronously used term. Have you ever actually seen someone make an error like that and be scum? I sincerely doubt it.
Quote from Kraj »
Piggyback, my ass. You of all people should not need this explained. If anyone piggybacked it was Skander on me.
Read back farther. Yes, it seems you get the credit for that idea.
Quote from Kraj »
I'd also like to know why you think the wording issue is not a tell.
Using language imprecisely is common, whereas your theory that he was saying two different things because of a scum cause stretches credulity. There was no reason to read it that way, and it was easy to see how a misunderstanding could arise.
So when you take minor curiosities like that and try to sell the town on a wagon because of them, yeah, alarm bells start going off from a "good or bad effect on the town" standpoint. You're pushing weak wagons overaggressively.
Quote from Kraj »
Fine, where's the scum tell? What does a scum gain by asking a player to clarify before voting if he's going to disregard that player's opinion in his vote?
It's not a scum tell, it was a scum read that you were thinking about whether you could get away with a vote on him. Not sure where it stands now that it seems you initiated that point against him. I suppose it morphs into a pure voting rationale case.
Quote from Kraj »
That's probably true. It's also probably true that the scum are sitting back and letting active townies get all the attention, just like always.
Seems like a self-serving observation.
When scum are players who can afford to sit back, they often sit back. When scum are active players, they have to attempt to play actively. This isn't a good defense, it's an attempt to turn me aside.
Quote from Kraj »
The funny thing about that recipie for creating lylo is that it only holds true if "Town Azrael" is an ingredient. Tell ya what, how about we lynch me and then if I'm town and you're alive tomorrow, we lynch you?
Proposing a game of chicken really doesn't do much for your credibility with me. You haven't seriously made a case against me. So why propose a course of action that (from your standpoint if you're town) could easily result in the deaths of two townie players?
Reads like you're more interested in scaring me off than in the wider well-being of the town.
And it's hardly an oddity that I'm proceeding from the assumption that I'm town when formulating my analysis.
Wait, wait, wait. That's the "stronger points from Cyan" I didn't engage? That's not a point at all! All he says is "have you ever seen someone make that mistake and be scum?" Cyan says that all the time about anything he feels like.
Using language imprecisely is common, whereas your theory that he was saying two different things because of a scum cause stretches credulity. There was no reason to read it that way, and it was easy to see how a misunderstanding could arise.
So do you disagree with the logic that scum are more likely to contradict themselves because their positions aren't based on genuine logical process?
So when you take minor curiosities like that and try to sell the town on a wagon because of them, yeah, alarm bells start going off from a "good or bad effect on the town" standpoint. You're pushing weak wagons overaggressively.
I've seen scum caught on "minor curiosities" many a time. Frankly, I suspect people catching "minor curiosities" has a better track record at catching scum than actual cases and logical argument. (Mostly, I'd wager, due to the lurk factor.) I can say in my experience that people I thought were town based on logic and anaylsis were caught on such slips that the town ran with.
It's not a scum tell, it was a scum read that you were thinking about whether you could get away with a vote on him. Not sure where it stands now that it seems you initiated that point against him. I suppose it morphs into a pure voting rationale case.
Not sure? You suppose? This looks an awful lot like something you just attacked me for.
When scum are players who can afford to sit back, they often sit back. When scum are active players, they have to attempt to play actively. This isn't a good defense, it's an attempt to turn me aside.
And considering the state of this game, do you think the scum can afford to sit back?
Proposing a game of chicken really doesn't do much for your credibility with me. You haven't seriously made a case against me. So why propose a course of action that (from your standpoint if you're town) could easily result in the deaths of two townie players?
Why do I get the feeling the paranthetical was added as an afterthought? Worst-case scenario here is I'm done with this frustrating game, and the town ends up losing. 1 good, 1 bad, but I'm used to losing; at least this time I would deserve it. I don't have much motivation not to go this direction, especially considering every time I make any effort at all to actually play the game normally most players just ignore me and the rest attack me.
Reads like you're more interested in scaring me off than in the wider well-being of the town.
What happened when you attacked me day 1? I went toe-to-toe with you and you backed off. You think I'd rather employ diversion tactics than convince you? You think I think I could actually scare you off with cheap tricks?
And it's hardly an oddity that I'm proceeding from the assumption that I'm town when formulating my analysis.
No it's not; but your analysis is assuming that I should also be assuming you're town. Just because you know it could result in lylo doesn't mean I do, but you're analyzing my state of mind when making the 'joke plan'.
You know what? Let's make this a case of me or you. At least this should be interesting.
Unvote, Vote: Azrael
At this point, I'd like to call everyone's attention to something that's been in the back of my mind all game:
My point is that he's trying to read the actions of someone he's assuming is town. Trying to figure out what a townie is doing. And then sharing that publicly. I guarantee that figuring out what a strangely acting townies are up to is very high up on mafia players' priority list.
Anyone think I haven't been playing strangely?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
I'm not sure what the last point means Kraj, are you trying to say that Azrael is trying to analyse you as a strangely acting townie and hence commiting a tell he described himself earlier?
I argued that the scum are interested in trying to read strangely-acting townies when they think those townies might be gambitting.
In context, I'm talking about behavior like Xyre and Chris' assumptions that I was gambiting on day one, and posting those observations in the thread.
I don't think you're gambiting. I'm getting nowhere with mindset right now, so I'm trying out reverting back to a little effect-based analysis, and you're one of the players who's been acting both strange and arguably anti-town since the start of the game. You're the nail that sticks out.
Interesting you're "worried I might be scum" when you've cased and voted me. Don't you actually think I am scum?
I'm not sure I'm going to bother making a case on you. People in this game have repeatedly shown disinterest in such things.
Did you notice how quickly I voted and unvoted Cyan? I'm in search of a case, not dead-set on anything. The number of replacements in this game seriously disrupted our continuity, and the fact that we now have a boatload of more-difficult-to-read analysts in their place hasn't helped.
For instance, if netfinity had stuck around, we would have had a day one bandwagon pretty much set to run as soon as day hit. Now, we have to put in some extra effort, and restart the information clock with players who are less likely to give away pertinent, reliable information.
It's a pretty toxic informational environment, so no, I'm not confident about my scum reads right now. Most of the reads I'm relatively confident in are on players who have been with us from the start, and gave away what seemed to be good tells. But even some of those players have been effectively shut off as information streams because their replacements are more difficult to gauge and confirm the previous reads.
I mean honestly. You post nothing for 5 days, then come in and have nothing to add but to add your vote onto the most popular wagon for the moment? Based on an erronously used term. Have you ever actually seen someone make an error like that and be scum? I sincerely doubt it.
A) PhantomS isn't the most popular wagon, AH is.
B) I can't recall seeing that happen. The point is that he said either Kraj or Az was scum based on their interactions. Then when asked for a specific example, he cited a reason for them being scumbuddies. This does not compute. I believe he made up the scumbuddy reason after being pressed for an example and forgot that he had said "either or" beforehand and was just looking for any old reason.
I mean it's a pretty big difference between two players being scumbuddies and 1 being scum and 1 being town based on their interactions. I find it very dubious that the two could be mixed up.
Er... you don't have a problem with intentionally avoiding talking?
Indeed, but what do you think of the actual point? Do you think PhantomS's contradiction indicates that he was posting false opinions?
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
I agree with Skander's analysis, which should be obvious since it was my questions that were leading in that direction.
Unvote, Vote: PhantomS
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
It seems he is aware of his post but doesn't immediately bactrack until he realizes later that he can't defend against it.
If he wasn't thinking of his original either or post when he wrote this, there would be no reason for him to say anything other than "Huh? I think you're both scum, where did I say otherwise?" He is acknowleding Kraj's issue but tries to defend against it. Only later does he backtrack.
PhantomS is lying.
Also, why are you voting me and why are you ignoring the case against PhantomS?
And all the evidence you needed to vote was for me to state either/or instead of and/or like I meant?
Sounds to me like you're just looking for a wagon what you think might move. vote: Skander
FoS: Kraj pending him answering the above question.
You don't gain anything, because this wasn't on purpose - it was a mistake, obviously you didn't mean to do it. You started a fake opinion one way, and then when asked for specifics you forgot what you wrote and went the other way.
Explain this post for me please:
I wrote the wrong thing. Even if that were the case how would that by scummy?
At the time I thought that I had posted "Kraj or Az" and not "either Kraj or Az" and I didn't check back because that's what I thought I wrote because that's my actual belief- that one or both are scum.
That doesn't really change anything.
If you had said:
It would still be a problem. You didn't say that both of them are scum, you said one of them is scum. And then later you say they are scumbuddies - making them both scum.
And now you say your belief is that one or both are scum. Never mind the fact that it doesn't jive with what you've said, how does it make sense? Your argument is for them being scumbuddies. How can only one of them be scum according to you?
"I just explained that. You did not believe the suspicion that you stated. You were making it up to make it seem like you had opinions."
is me, the rest is PhantomS.
Sure. Don't bother with the facts that point against you or the question I've just asked you but you obviously can't answer so you feel the need to direct attention elsewhere.
Let's try again.
When pressed for a scum list you said that either Kraj or Az was scum. From the fact that later posts don't line up with your supposed mindset it is obvious that you made the original opinion up to satisfy DYH's request for a scumlist.
Let me ask you again: You just said that one or both of Kraj and Az is scum. How can only one of them be scum according to your scumbuddy theory?
I'm "not bothering" with "the facts" because I find your accusations to be rather silly.
To what end would a person make up that they had an opinion?
I've seen people misspeak in scummy manners, but you're really grasping at straws here, boss.
You don't have a scumbuddy theory so what's this?
What you have there are two premises that don't necessarily lead to one conclusion. You only think it goes one way because you're using chumyness as a synonym for scum-buddiness while ignoring the context entirely.
I get the idea that they feel some inclination to lynch the other, which could mean one, the other or both are scum.
Also, now it seems like your argument is that I have a scum-buddy theory and that is scummy... I don't get it big Dan.
What did you mean when you said this?
I already answered that. I posted it when I thought I hadn't posted the word either and merely the word "or".
See, X or Y is true when both X and Y are true.
Get it now, champ?
Unvote.
I agree with pretty much everything Skander is saying, but he's also pressing the issue really strongly. Phantom's "slip up" could be just that, but it's nowhere near as conclusive as Skander is treating it.
Unvote
Dunno what to think at the moment.
Oh, and Zasz's logic is just nonsense. Town don't ask questions leading towards a conclusion? Not to mention, why vote Skander apparently over his push on Phantom and not say a thing about it?
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
PhantomS claims to have misspoken, yet Kraj thinks PhantomS doesn't understand what the problem is? Aren't these two things rather incompatible?
PhantomS votes Skander and FoSes Kraj after they attack him. Forgive me for using an over-used term, here, but that post was the very definition of OMGUS.
He again downplays any attack on him and reverts to condescending tones and names to do it (boss, champ, etc.).
And the reaction by the two of them is to... unvote?
I am thoroughly confused.
@mod: Can we get a prod on Azrael?
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
I'm a bit confused myself, but I disagree with the bold. I see the logic to Kraj's point.
Still highly interested in a response from AH.
And yet at this point you still haven't bothered to explain what was dubious or scummy about the point we both made. The closest you've gotten is to say it's because PhantomS is a soft target. Given the state this game is in, I'd be interested to hear who you think isn't a soft target.
Interesting. So basically, you engaged in the same behavior you found suspicious from Skander. Cyan accused him of opportunism, and you consider Phantom to be a soft target, yet you make an equally opportunistic vote on an equally (if not moreso) soft target.
Vote: ZasZ
Going back to my read of Charm and andelijah, as I no longer have any good vibes from him.
You know, I already pointed out myself that the point didn't hold much. But "ride another person's wind"? Are you joking? You already acknowledged it was my questions that lead Skander into voting Phantom, not the other way around. And if I just wanted to barn someone/borrow someone's townie cred, why the hell would I pick Skander? Your accusations have no logic behind them.
Not really. I think PhantomS believes claiming to misspeak is an adequate defense; a person would be genuinely confused about why their reason isn't accepted when they are telling the truth. Of course, that hinges on whether Phantom's confusing is genuine, but that's my read.
I agree. But if I may be so bold, OMGUS is such a widely known tell that these days I think townies are more likely to blatantly engage in it. It's the more subtle kinds of OMGUS that scum tend to employ.
That I didn't really catch; I'll have to take a look back to see what I think of it.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
I'm suspicious of Zasz (and maybe AH) pulling that because so very few people were willing to launch counterattacks yesterday. If the wagon was as utterly wrongheaded as Zasz and AH assert, we should have seen the counter-wagon against me yesterday, not today. If an argument is poor, you don't need the ultimate results before you spearhead a charge against a player for it.
My reasons for Charmandez climbing the list are that while I don't see much reliable substance in your case, neither of the predecessor players provided pro-town tells, and I've already begun detailing my suspicions of their successor.
I linked to Xyre's PBPA on Netfinity earlier today. At the time, my agreement was a general, blanket approval. I can probably reemphasize the important points sometime later, but I can't recall disagreeing with any of the points he raised there.
So if I take what he wrote literally, then I'm either misrepresenting what he meant, or attacking him for a slip-up that's not conclusively scummy. The former is b.s. because actually he'd be the one who misrepresented what he meant by misspeaking. The latter is not even a scum tell in any way. I saw something I considered a possible slip-up, voted him over it, and you're treating it as if I've been non-stop campaigning for his death over it. I can't tell if your attack on me is contrived or just horribly ill-conceived, but considering my suspecions of your predecessors I'm going with the former.
Nice dodge. I'll repeat: who in the game do you think is not a soft target at this point? Who is not a player whom is easy to launch an attack against?
Lol! You're right about that. You actually pointed out his contradiction before I or Skander did. You contributed to what was obviously a forming attack based on perceived contradiction, and now you're suspicious of the people who actually made the attack instead of you who indirectly supported it.
That is priceless. Happy with my vote.
@Azrael: That makes some sense but can that logic really apply to a player who just entered the game? Plus, wouldn't it be a natural townie reaction to be suspicious of a player who pushed hard on a townie even if they had agreed with the wagon?
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
Within these circumstances, no, I don't think so. The Xyre wagon wasn't slipshod; it was exhaustively researched with a level of detail that most players found too daunting.
Call it a dreadnought? Sure. But the Xyre wagon had more thought and dialogue put into it than most successful townie wagons, and painting it as some kind of travesty against good mafia play is a fairly colored read. Perhaps an opportunistic one.
Overposting, or research as it is called these days, is anyone's weapon. It was a mislynch, and considering the grounds and what Xyre actually got lynched for, its more than plausible that the mafia were very, very involved.
Granted, but the critical part of your post is this:
What were the grounds that he was lynched for in your mind, and which of those grounds make it seems so plausible that there was mafia involvement? What was the fatal flaw, and if you can see it so clearly in hindsight, then why not yesterday?
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=4194036&postcount=412
In sum, Xyre identified a pretty fair number of voting rationale problems with his attacks on Chris, WoD, his Toastboy defenses, folding his arguments without much of a fight, and some interesting instances of hypocritical reasoning.
@Kraj: I understand your point on his reaction now. Have any thoughts on this part yet?
Waiting to hear from Skander at this point.
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
It would be nice if I could read Cyan, too.
Unvote while I figure out which of my other three I'm most interested in.
What are you waiting to hear?
OK, just reread the last couple of pages to figure out what was going on with Phantom-gate.
This vote is horrible, as Cyan pointed out. The wording wasn't a valid tell. But he completely piggybacks on that single point.
Beyond that, I'm not a fan of how Kraj tentatively dipped his feet in the water with a question for Cyan, then goes for the vote after thinking it over a little more. On the same information that was already there when he posed his questions.
Between this and the "bandwagoning is good" vote from earlier, Kraj's voting history has had more weird overextensions than a townie usually shows. Vote Kraj.
I'm also still intrigued by that joke-recipe for creating Lylo that he gave us.
Don't like the "dunno what to think at the moment" statement. Superfluous, reads like stage acting. And then, he responds to Zasz's weak attack, and never really engages with the stronger points from Cyan.
There shouldn't be anything hugely confusing about what just happened. And I find it hard to believe Kraj is trying to work his way through some complex dichotomy of Skander vs. Phantom. If you genuinely bought the grounds for the attack, then why are you suspicious of Skander for pushing it so strongly?
I don't actually see how newbishness or lurking explains any of those points.
Yes. I see what you're talking about but it reinforces my read that he's genuinely confused as to why he's being attacked. He's being condescending because he thinks Skander is being an idiot and he's annoyed that his attempts to explain himself have been unsuccessful. At least that's how it looks to me. It's possible that he's intentionally doing it but I have a hard time seeing a scum smugly making a defense that is so obviously wrong. To me, it looks like the actions of a player who's never played scum.
If there was anything to say that Skander hadn't already, I would have. This is not a case of me saying "I think so and so is scum" and not explaining why. This is a case of a player making a tell and me voting over it. You're all bothered because I didn't yet go into detail about why the tell is a tell, which is ridiculous. Normally in this case I'd oblige going through the facts and the logic, but a.) I've already done so and lost it and I don't feel like doing it again, b.) I don't think the point is worth continuing to persue Phantom over, c.) you're the only one who seems particularly bothered by my actions and your attack is, well it doesn't exactly make me feel like I'm in danger, d.) I think you're scum. So, I'm just not going to detail it all out just to defend myself from you.
At this point I'd be second-guessing myself as to whether I find you scummy simply for using awful logic, but considering my suspicions of Charm Master and andelijah, I think you're scum using awful logic.
Please familiarize yourself with the terms "former" and "latter" and reread my statement.
That's false. It was my point of analysis that started the push on Phantom:
Skander picked up on my logic and laid out the analysis. There wasn't anything else to say. Phantom contradicted himself; that is a fact. Whether you accept it is because he misspoke or because he didn't actually believe his point is up to you. All Skander did that I didn't do was argue with Phantom about whether his contradiction is actually a tell.
O...K.... Do me a favor: define "soft target".
Lol, what was there to dodge? Let's ignore where I said I agreed with Azrael's read on you, because I also implicitly defended you by questioning his motives. I pointed out a comment I didn't like of your's in defense of AH. I commented that you attacked me with nonsense logic, and also that you voted Skander without any comment whatsoever (a far worse example of the behavior you're calling me scummy over). I then point out more behaviors I find suspicious from you, and are confused as to where the good "vibe" went. And you accuse me of OMGUSing you because you "got too close", after I've made it pretty clear I think your attacks are full of nonsense. It was funny.
If I wanted to go into the logic problems here I would, but I don't think it's a strong enough point to be worth it. Suffice to say, I'm not convinced you were simply interested in clearing up an innocent misunderstanding.
OK, I can see basing suspicion on that. (Sort of. I don't see how malice has anything to do with the situation.) Voting and launching a full-scale attack simply because you don't agree with the opposite point of view when you clearly recognized it, however, looks an awful lot like taking the opportunity to make a quick vote without drawing much flak for it.
Was this satisfactory?
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
Incidentally, the last time I made such a remark to you, I was town and you were scum. *chin scratch*
Piggyback, my ass. You of all people should not need this explained. If anyone piggybacked it was Skander on me.
I'd also like to know why you think the wording issue is not a tell.
Fine, where's the scum tell? What does a scum gain by asking a player to clarify before voting if he's going to disregard that player's opinion in his vote?
Did you find the question out of line? Was it unreasonable to ask Cyan to comment on the validity of the point?
That's probably true. It's also probably true that the scum are sitting back and letting active townies get all the attention, just like always.
The funny thing about that recipie for creating lylo is that it only holds true if "Town Azrael" is an ingredient. Tell ya what, how about we lynch me and then if I'm town and you're alive tomorrow, we lynch you?
Cyan made points? Could you direct me to them, please?
*ahem* I didn't "buy" the grounds for the attack, I formulated them. I'm getting annoyed at repeatedly being accused of coattailing Skander. The reason I'm suspicious of Skander for running away with the point so strongly is same reason I didn't run away with the point so strongly: it's not that strong of a point. It's something suspicious worthy of applying pressure and seeing what the response is. It's not some case-closed obvscumtell, and Skander was pushing it like it is. Not to mention he did so knowing he'd have my support.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
I had thought PhantomS pushed the scumbuddying accusation himself. If so there is no way that "either" was a slip-up. It would be the complete opposite of what he was trying to say (saying both of them scum and not one and directly contradicting it by saying one is scum and one is not; not both). You do not make a mistake saying the complete opposite of what you meant to say (unless of course we're talking about missing out a "not" or something of the sort).
The way things actually are however, it's possible that PhantomS only misspoke (saying only one of them are scum and then saying one or both are scum). That's not a huge suspension of disbelief.
Read back farther. Yes, it seems you get the credit for that idea.
Using language imprecisely is common, whereas your theory that he was saying two different things because of a scum cause stretches credulity. There was no reason to read it that way, and it was easy to see how a misunderstanding could arise.
So when you take minor curiosities like that and try to sell the town on a wagon because of them, yeah, alarm bells start going off from a "good or bad effect on the town" standpoint. You're pushing weak wagons overaggressively.
It's not a scum tell, it was a scum read that you were thinking about whether you could get away with a vote on him. Not sure where it stands now that it seems you initiated that point against him. I suppose it morphs into a pure voting rationale case.
Seems like a self-serving observation.
When scum are players who can afford to sit back, they often sit back. When scum are active players, they have to attempt to play actively. This isn't a good defense, it's an attempt to turn me aside.
Proposing a game of chicken really doesn't do much for your credibility with me. You haven't seriously made a case against me. So why propose a course of action that (from your standpoint if you're town) could easily result in the deaths of two townie players?
Reads like you're more interested in scaring me off than in the wider well-being of the town.
And it's hardly an oddity that I'm proceeding from the assumption that I'm town when formulating my analysis.
@Kraj: Fair enough. I read it as an attempt to berate the opponents out of argument. Since it can be seen either way, it's a null tell.
I need to check some things; I've seen Kraj this sarcastic before - I don't remember exactly which game.
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
So do you disagree with the logic that scum are more likely to contradict themselves because their positions aren't based on genuine logical process?
I've seen scum caught on "minor curiosities" many a time. Frankly, I suspect people catching "minor curiosities" has a better track record at catching scum than actual cases and logical argument. (Mostly, I'd wager, due to the lurk factor.) I can say in my experience that people I thought were town based on logic and anaylsis were caught on such slips that the town ran with.
Not sure? You suppose? This looks an awful lot like something you just attacked me for.
Yup. Doesn't make it any less true.
And considering the state of this game, do you think the scum can afford to sit back?
Why do I get the feeling the paranthetical was added as an afterthought? Worst-case scenario here is I'm done with this frustrating game, and the town ends up losing. 1 good, 1 bad, but I'm used to losing; at least this time I would deserve it. I don't have much motivation not to go this direction, especially considering every time I make any effort at all to actually play the game normally most players just ignore me and the rest attack me.
What happened when you attacked me day 1? I went toe-to-toe with you and you backed off. You think I'd rather employ diversion tactics than convince you? You think I think I could actually scare you off with cheap tricks?
No it's not; but your analysis is assuming that I should also be assuming you're town. Just because you know it could result in lylo doesn't mean I do, but you're analyzing my state of mind when making the 'joke plan'.
You know what? Let's make this a case of me or you. At least this should be interesting.
Unvote, Vote: Azrael
At this point, I'd like to call everyone's attention to something that's been in the back of my mind all game:
Anyone think I haven't been playing strangely?
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
Yup.
A little tricky to follow since he didn't used linked quotes, but I think it was referring to ToastBoy.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
Actually, I don't. I don't have a confident scum read on anyone in this game right now.
I argued that the scum are interested in trying to read strangely-acting townies when they think those townies might be gambitting.
In context, I'm talking about behavior like Xyre and Chris' assumptions that I was gambiting on day one, and posting those observations in the thread.
I don't think you're gambiting. I'm getting nowhere with mindset right now, so I'm trying out reverting back to a little effect-based analysis, and you're one of the players who's been acting both strange and arguably anti-town since the start of the game. You're the nail that sticks out.
Have to run.
Problem was with Xyre and Chris in theory was that they were analyzing someone they thought was town, instead of a scum player.
I'm worried you might be scum.
Interested in seeing your case.
I'm not sure I'm going to bother making a case on you. People in this game have repeatedly shown disinterest in such things.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
Did you notice how quickly I voted and unvoted Cyan? I'm in search of a case, not dead-set on anything. The number of replacements in this game seriously disrupted our continuity, and the fact that we now have a boatload of more-difficult-to-read analysts in their place hasn't helped.
For instance, if netfinity had stuck around, we would have had a day one bandwagon pretty much set to run as soon as day hit. Now, we have to put in some extra effort, and restart the information clock with players who are less likely to give away pertinent, reliable information.
It's a pretty toxic informational environment, so no, I'm not confident about my scum reads right now. Most of the reads I'm relatively confident in are on players who have been with us from the start, and gave away what seemed to be good tells. But even some of those players have been effectively shut off as information streams because their replacements are more difficult to gauge and confirm the previous reads.