Okay, a glance at Basic #7 and 9 reveals that Gamerz uses "soft" language as a standard part of his posting style, and the devil's advocate-like behavior that he has exhibited is pretty standard for him as well. His calmness under pressure is also paralleled in the endgame of Basic #9.
His attempt to alleviate pressure does not appear to have a precedent, but his continued stressing that he has learned his lesson not to self-vote suggests that such an action was experimental.
At this point, the only part I'm suspicious of why Gamerz was so worried about the early pressure, as that doesn't fit his light posting style at all.
I don't know yet what to make of bman's attack against N_A, but so far I tzke it as a sign of them not being buddies. So I think up to one of them is scum, but not both. (my scum read on bman beats my scum read on N_A by an insignificant margin btw)
Hmm, I'm not reading anything that says they aren't on the same time, especially since bman's attack was so weak and thoughtless.
I'll wait for Nom_Anor to explain why he didn't agree with me in the first place before trying to determine his thought process there.
Reading iLord's mafia wiki, it says that he is aggressive and does not like random posts. I don't trust this source that much cos it's probs written by him/her. Either way, his/her analysis of posts does not gain any town points in my book.
Do note that the wiki is outdated, and yes, was written by me a long time ago.
What Nom_Anor is trying to saw here is that he thinks I"m trying too hard to look town, which doesn't appear to be what you're saying here. Can you elaborate on your opinion of the analysis itself, rather than my alignment?
I don't think you or I have been around long enough for me to have gotten my playstyle 'personalized'. Your read seems fake. What about my posts seem 'reasonable' or as you put it 'Gamerz'?
Oh, and Seppel, I can answer iLord's questions, but I feel that my last explanation of what happened early should be sufficient. I just realized that I was going too at length in answering things and getting too upset about being under suspicion so early.
You of all people would definitely understand the importance of "fun" in a mafia game, but I don't feel that it is a valid reason for attempting to discouraging developments.
I've already developed that Gamerz is town. You are being too slow to realize this and I find this improper of you.
Reading iLord's mafia wiki, it says that he is aggressive and does not like random posts. I don't trust this source that much cos it's probs written by him/her. Either way, his/her analysis of posts does not gain any town points in my book.
I don't ever see iLord being aggressive unless he's scum. And when he's agressive, he's poorly agressive. In this case, towards Gamerz.
Guys, we shouldn't lynch this fast. Gamerz got targeted by like, page 2, and everyone's wagoning him for defending himself. If I got targeted that early, I'd defend myself too.
It's because bman's attack was weak and thoughtless that I'm inclined to think they're not allied. When bussing their buddies, scum have a tendency to spot scumtells no one else could spot.
Again, we disagree. From my experience, there's two type of "busing" that scum usually do. One type is the absolute pull-out-all-the-stops to get that player lynched push, like my entire scum did to me on Day 1 of Inheritance Mafia. The other style is distancing, which is usually pretty evenly split between weak attacks and small scumtells, depending mostly on the experience of the scum in question.
In this case, I wouldn't expect bman to pull about subtle scum tells in an attempt to bus Nom_Anor, but his weak attack could very well be distancing.
However, I'm not really seeing the connection right now - I just don't see anything against such a connection between bman and Nom_Anor.
The fact that you pretty much straight up answer iLord's questions without really dodging or evading some of the questions while giving (what seems to me) like your candid thinking to explain your actions/reactions.
Considering that I was obv town all through the game we both played in, how could you possibly figure out what my playstyle is like when I'm under pressure?
How is Kraj 'likely town'? He has even posted yet. And jskura as scum already? Is this based off of your early tell of him voting himself? You jump to conclusions waaaay too quickly.
If someone claims that they are an unlynchable, unkillable, octa-voter, with 4 daykills and 6 doc-protects, then technically lynching that person solely based on his claim would be gaming the mod, but I would be just fine doing that.
Well, when I first read through iLord's post, it felt to me like he was picking at gamerz off of nothing--he was having to try to hard to find something scummy from him. Then after Gamerz's ultra-defensive post, I changed my mind. I'm still not sure if iLord had the best case against him, but he's certainly scummy.
Bman doesn't seem like mafia to me. He made a mistake, but other than that, he hasn't been lurking like he was when mafia.
I'm liking Zebi. He's been very level minded, and I like the fact he's been telling us to slow down.
The fact that you pretty much straight up answer iLord's questions without really dodging or evading some of the questions while giving (what seems to me) like your candid thinking to explain your actions/reactions.
Considering that I was obv town all through the game we both played in, how could you possibly figure out what my playstyle is like when I'm under pressure?
Huh? Could you explain what you mean by that, it seems like a non-sequitur.
Also, I'm getting a town read from seppel(though, last time I though that, he was actually scum, but I think I learned my lesson from that a bit), but I'm still not sure on him yet. It seems to me like he's a lot more assertive and confident when he's town and more questioning and unsure when scum.
That's about it for now. Still think Gamerz is scum.
I don't know if nom is town or scum. But I'd like to point out this type of behavior is his standard modus operandi.
Court Mafia: Day 1, hatch plan to KILL EVERYONE ELSE IN A SINGLE NIGHT, when the plan only allows him to hit 11 random players, ATTEMPTS TO FIRE ANYHOW (Roleblocked).
In other words....Nom is an impulsive player who doesn't think about planning long-term or listening to others. I wouldn't be surprised if he was town. At all.
Well, when I first read through iLord's post, it felt to me like he was picking at gamerz off of nothing--he was having to try to hard to find something scummy from him. Then after Gamerz's ultra-defensive post, I changed my mind. I'm still not sure if iLord had the best case against him, but he's certainly scummy.
This doesn't answer much - what parts of my first post did you not agree with, why did it feel like I was picking off of nothing, and how was Gamerz's last post "ultra-defensive."
Quote from Nom_Anor »
Also, I'm getting a town read from seppel(though, last time I though that, he was actually scum, but I think I learned my lesson from that a bit), but I'm still not sure on him yet. It seems to me like he's a lot more assertive and confident when he's town and more questioning and unsure when scum.
I actually scanned over Kingmaker. Don't see the correlation you're pointing out here. In fact, one of the things I noted from that was that I couldn't just assume that Seppel is town in this game like I usually do, because (Contrary to what I believed) he does not adopt a noticeable change of posting style (Other than his like of posting "I'M TOWN" a bunch like he did in Inheritance).
You gotta explain some more, because this isn't cutting it.
Well, when I first read through iLord's post, it felt to me like he was picking at gamerz off of nothing--he was having to try to hard to find something scummy from him. Then after Gamerz's ultra-defensive post, I changed my mind. I'm still not sure if iLord had the best case against him, but he's certainly scummy.
His questions to me was fair, I found. I certainly don't fault him for making a case against me. And you didn't explain why you thought my post was 'defensive'.
Bman doesn't seem like mafia to me. He made a mistake, but other than that, he hasn't been lurking like he was when mafia.
He's been under some questioning since his first post...he hasn't really had a chance to lurk behind the scenes yet. Not to mention that it seems like a really weak tell to be declaring someone 'not mafia' on. Especially this early.
Huh? Could you explain what you mean by that, it seems like a non-sequitur.
My point is this: I was obvtown in basic 7...I was never under any pressure at all. Yet, when comparing my play now to that game, Bman mentions that I never dodged or evaded any questions, which doesn't make sense to me, since I never had that opportunity in the previous game anyways.
If someone claims that they are an unlynchable, unkillable, octa-voter, with 4 daykills and 6 doc-protects, then technically lynching that person solely based on his claim would be gaming the mod, but I would be just fine doing that.
How is Kraj 'likely town'? He has even posted yet. And jskura as scum already? Is this based off of your early tell of him voting himself? You jump to conclusions waaaay too quickly.
Oh, I screwed up the Likely Town and Unknown or whatever.
I'm like 90-95% accurate when someone is at L-2. I may jump to conclusions, but I'M RIGHT.
W may only be paid with white mana. U may only be paid with blue mana. B may only be paid with black mana. R may only be paid with red mana. G may only be paid with green mana. C may only be paid with colorless mana. 1 may be paid with white, blue, black, red, green, or clolorless mana.
@Seppel: Looking over it again, I don't see much of a difference, other than the fact that I'm not on V/LA for significant periods of frenzied posting. When I posted on Day 2, I was making a fairly aggressive push against Ahsaver/Loran.
How is Kraj 'likely town'? He has even posted yet.
*chuckle*
Seppel is probably just used to putting me in that category after doing so for about 5 months in Inheritance.
No indication that Gamerz is scum as far as I'm concerned.
iLord, however, made an overly deep case and treated it conclusively to an absurd degree. And then backed off over an extremely flimsy meta analysis. iLord is awfully scummy here.
Nom_Anor, however, doesn't seem to recognize the scumminess of iLord's behavior at all and instead barns him. He also calls Gamerz out for being "far too defensive" when all he's done is respond to each point brought against him. This fits an extremely common pattern in games here: loud townies dominate the conversation, the scummy-looking ones garner all the attention, the actual scum sit back and quietly let them lynch each other. The fun little monkey wrench in that pattern is iLord in particular tends to get caught for looking scummy early on when he's actually scum. But I think Nom_Anor comes out looking the worst from all of this.
Vote: Nom_Anor
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.
iLord, however, made an overly deep case and treated it conclusively to an absurd degree. And then backed off over an extremely flimsy meta analysis. iLord is awfully scummy here.
Have you played with Gamerz before? If you look at his games, a lot of what I was attacking for, like the non-confrontational language and the senseless self-vote, can be explained by how he plays.
No indication that Gamerz is scum as far as I'm concerned.
iLord, however, made an overly deep case and treated it conclusively to an absurd degree. And then backed off over an extremely flimsy meta analysis. iLord is awfully scummy here.
Nom_Anor, however, doesn't seem to recognize the scumminess of iLord's behavior at all and instead barns him. He also calls Gamerz out for being "far too defensive" when all he's done is respond to each point brought against him. This fits an extremely common pattern in games here: loud townies dominate the conversation, the scummy-looking ones garner all the attention, the actual scum sit back and quietly let them lynch each other. The fun little monkey wrench in that pattern is iLord in particular tends to get caught for looking scummy early on when he's actually scum. But I think Nom_Anor comes out looking the worst from all of this.
Vote: Nom_Anor
Hm? On the contrary, did I not at first say iLord's case wasn't that great? It was hardly iLord's case against gamerz that got me voting for him--though he did have a point that gamerz voting himself to releave pressure--but Skander's defensive post.
And yes, it was really defensive. Responding to every piece of another players laundry list is fine, but on page 2? It's like he was back to the wall over three votes in the somewhat-random voting stage.
I don't know if nom is town or scum. But I'd like to point out this type of behavior is his standard modus operandi.
Court Mafia: Day 1, hatch plan to KILL EVERYONE ELSE IN A SINGLE NIGHT, when the plan only allows him to hit 11 random players, ATTEMPTS TO FIRE ANYHOW (Roleblocked).
In other words....Nom is an impulsive player who doesn't think about planning long-term or listening to others. I wouldn't be surprised if he was town. At all.
Yes, and the thing I'm talking about is often the starting point for the first kind of bussing you mention. (I wouldn't call "distancing" a style of bussing by the way)
I'm confused now by what you mean. I don't see bman's attack against Nom_Anor as bussing, which I think you agree with. However, I'm not seeing why it necessarily implies that they cannot be on the same team, as bman could very well be attacking Nom_Anor to distance himself from him.
Quote from Nom_Anor »
And yes, it was really defensive. Responding to every piece of another players laundry list is fine, but on page 2? It's like he was back to the wall over three votes in the somewhat-random voting stage.
You do know that the third vote was his own, correct? Three votes sounds a lot better than two, doesn't it?
ZDS is correct that this a completely flimsy reason for explaining your vote, and smells suspiciously like an excuse.
When a scum decides to bus a buddy and there isn't already a wagon on that buddy, he will often provide an oddly sharp and accurate case as the starting point. Obviously Bman's "case" isn't "oddly sharp and accurate", so I don't think he's bussing.
He could be distancing (I didn't think about things this way). Or not be. There's no sign of either option being the correct one, to be honest.
Yeah, that's what I was saying - I didn't read any indication that they were distancing but I disagreed with you read that they were on different alignments.
iLord, however, made an overly deep case and treated it conclusively to an absurd degree. And then backed off over an extremely flimsy meta analysis. iLord is awfully scummy here.
Like I said before, I found his case on me fair. He was asking me good questions and seemed to me to trying to dig deeper to see what kind of mindset I had for what I was doing in the early game.
But...while I am indeed non-confrontational in general, I don't quite agree with him that my 'senseless self-vote' can be explained by my play. I've basically finished 1 and a half games, so it can hardly be determined that I would do something like that as either scum or town.
I'm not thinking at this point that he's as scummy as you think he seems to be.
Nom_Anor, however, doesn't seem to recognize the scumminess of iLord's behavior at all and instead barns him. He also calls Gamerz out for being "far too defensive" when all he's done is respond to each point brought against him.
And I find his response to you lacking. All he really does is just define what 'defensive' is.
This fits an extremely common pattern in games here: loud townies dominate the conversation, the scummy-looking ones garner all the attention, the actual scum sit back and quietly let them lynch each other.
From the games that I've played so far, this definitely seems to be the case. So, for that matter...everyone else care to jump in and speak your piece about what's happened so far?
If someone claims that they are an unlynchable, unkillable, octa-voter, with 4 daykills and 6 doc-protects, then technically lynching that person solely based on his claim would be gaming the mod, but I would be just fine doing that.
But...while I am indeed non-confrontational in general, I don't quite agree with him that my 'senseless self-vote' can be explained by my play. I've basically finished 1 and a half games, so it can hardly be determined that I would do something like that as either scum or town.
The point isn't whether or not to determine if such an action is a town or scum tell (And so doing so would be almost impossible through meta considering that in both games you've been town), but to determine whether or not your behavior is something that is out of character for you. Based on your behavior in prior games and your repeated assertion that you have learned your lesson not to self-vote this game, I concluded that most of your behavior that I had initially perceived to be scummy as a null tell, and that your self-vote was largely an experimental action.
From the games that I've played so far, this definitely seems to be the case. So, for that matter...everyone else care to jump in and speak your piece about what's happened so far?
A big deal is being made out of what happened in the random phase.
I don't feel that anyone has done anything extremely scummy yet, and the stuff that happened in the random phase, along with the reactions, were just as they should be at that point - random. Obviously there's been a few people who are louder than the others, drawing all the attention. I would post more, but I don't feel like I have much place in this conversation until I can make a decision as to who I feel is scummy.
Hm? On the contrary, did I not at first say iLord's case wasn't that great?
Possibly. Didn't bother to look, but if this is accurate, how is this a good thing? I think it makes you look worse; instead of just agreeing with a bad case, you first disagreed and then reversed. Boo! Hiss!
It was hardly iLord's case against gamerz that got me voting for him--though he did have a point that gamerz voting himself to releave pressure--but Skander's defensive post.
Eh? I'll assume "Skander" is a misspeak here and you meant Gamerz, in which case, you still framed your post primarily as agreeing with iLord rather than owning your opinion.
And yes, it was really defensive. Responding to every piece of another players laundry list is fine, but on page 2?
It bothers you that someone responded to a laundry list of points against them on page 2, but it doesn't bother you that someone formed a laundry list of points on someone by page 2?
ZDS is correct that this a completely flimsy reason for explaining your vote, and smells suspiciously like an excuse.
Oh goodie: now iLord is dipping his toe in Nom's bandwagon. I'm pretty sure one of these two will be today's lynch. Figuring out which one should be fun!
[color=blue]Like I said before, I found his case on me fair. He was asking me good questions and seemed to me to trying to dig deeper to see what kind of mindset I had for what I was doing in the early game.
I'll need to reread more closely to see if I agree with you on that, but my issue isn't with whether his points against you were accurate, it is with how conclusively he treated them. A point might be fair, but that doesn't mean it's strong enough to call someone scum. This early in the game it's reasonable to latch on something small you think is scummy and attack someone for it, but to break down pretty much every single thing someone says and call it scummy 40 posts into the game... it's totally overboard.
A big deal is being made out of what happened in the random phase.
I don't feel that anyone has done anything extremely scummy yet, and the stuff that happened in the random phase, along with the reactions, were just as they should be at that point - random. Obviously there's been a few people who are louder than the others, drawing all the attention. I would post more, but I don't feel like I have much place in this conversation until I can make a decision as to who I feel is scummy.
Well the thing is early on in the game you'll rarely have enough information to come to a confident conclusion. If you wait until you're confident before making an opinion, you won't be talking much. We don't like that. So: tell us what you think so far. If you feel people are overreacting, who looks to be overreacting in the scummiest way? If no one, why not? Do you think anyone avoided forming an opinion in a suspicious way? Even if you don't have a strong opinion, you must have some opinion.
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.
Oh goodie: now iLord is dipping his toe in Nom's bandwagon. I'm pretty sure one of these two will be today's lynch. Figuring out which one should be fun!
This type of argument is both incorrect and incredibly annoying. There is nothing wrong with attacking someone that is already under attack unless you can explain why such an action is opportunistic, something you made no attempt to do.
Quote from Kraj »
I'll need to reread more closely to see if I agree with you on that, but my issue isn't with whether his points against you were accurate, it is with how conclusively he treated them. A point might be fair, but that doesn't mean it's strong enough to call someone scum. This early in the game it's reasonable to latch on something small you think is scummy and attack someone for it, but to break down pretty much every single thing someone says and call it scummy 40 posts into the game... it's totally overboard.
Obviously at that point, I was not confident that Gamerz was scum. I'm not understanding what's wrong with forming said "laundry list" - Why is going "totally overboard" indicative of scum?
Do I have to be confident a player is scum before calling that player scum?
---------------------------------
Kraj stinks of scum at this point. His first post:
Quote from Kraj »
Lord, however, made an overly deep case and treated it conclusively to an absurd degree. And then backed off over an extremely flimsy meta analysis. iLord is awfully scummy here.
Nom_Anor, however, doesn't seem to recognize the scumminess of iLord's behavior at all and instead barns him. He also calls Gamerz out for being "far too defensive" when all he's done is respond to each point brought against him. This fits an extremely common pattern in games here: loud townies dominate the conversation, the scummy-looking ones garner all the attention, the actual scum sit back and quietly let them lynch each other. The fun little monkey wrench in that pattern is iLord in particular tends to get caught for looking scummy early on when he's actually scum. But I think Nom_Anor comes out looking the worst from all of this.
Vote: Nom_Anor
This is what first caught my eye - the fact that he mentioned how scummy he viewed me, calling me "awfully scummy," and then voting Nom_Anor for not recognizing said scumminess and his poor attack on Gamerz. While admittedly the latter reason is valid, it would appear that his initial analysis of me weighs for more scummily than Nom_Anor's weak attack.
The thing here is that Kraj realizes this. He adds additional reasoning, calling upon a common pattern in mafia games to further justify his choice. Unfortunately, his example here reveals a disconnect in his reasoning. He cites three roles in his example: the loud townie, the scummy townie, and the quiet scum. Since he attributed the role of the quiet scum to Nom_Anor, it doesn't make any sense to call me scum since I would fill the role of either the loud or scummy townie.
Again, Kraj realizes that and decides to supplement this with my tendency to get caught early as scum by acting scummy (Notably making the above example completely pointless, indicating it was considered afterwards). This, coupled with his last assertion that Nom_Anor comes out scummier indicates that Kraj is attempting to fabricate his degree of suspicion on Nom_Anor and me. The "But I think" portion of the last line solidifies this reasoning, as that is hardly something to say after giving a logical train of thought (Like if someone says A=B, B=C, "but I think" A=C), but rather one said after declaring information contrasting to the conclusion.
Why Kraj is attempting to appear more suspicious of Nom_Anor I'm not sure (A variety of reasons would cover it), but I'm confident that Kraj is making up this suspicion. His second post begins to move on to attack me, even going as far as saying that "I'm pretty sure one of these two will be today's lynch," making it obvious that since his initial post, Kraj was ready to keep his foot on both wagons.
Further indication from his last post indicates that his attack on Nom and me was not genuine.
Quote from Kraj »
Possibly. Didn't bother to look, but if this is accurate, how is this a good thing? I think it makes you look worse; instead of just agreeing with a bad case, you first disagreed and then reversed. Boo! Hiss!
This is in response to Nom_Anor stating that he initially disagreed with my case, saying that I was trying too hard (to look town, I assume), which is ironically what Kraj believes as well. The fact that Kraj didn't even bother to look certainly makes it unlikely that he actually believes Nom_Anor is scum. TownKraj is not this lazy.
I wanted to say IGMEOY Kraj in my last post, but I had such a strong town read on his initial post that I held off.
iLord's post above fills me with relief.
Unvote, vote Kraj
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? You confuse the living daylights out of me, Seppel. Something tells you that you get a kick out of doing that sort of thing too.
Is it too much to ask for an explanation for how you went from 'iLord or Nom are scum' to 'Kraj is scum'? Do you think iLord is town now? Do you think Nom is still scum?
Giving iLord's post a quick read-through, I think I see what he's saying about Kraj, but I'm gonna sleep on it and read it again in the morning to see if I get a more clear picture.
If someone claims that they are an unlynchable, unkillable, octa-voter, with 4 daykills and 6 doc-protects, then technically lynching that person solely based on his claim would be gaming the mod, but I would be just fine doing that.
EBWODP, Actually, I think the answers are pretty obvious to my first question...it seems obvious that you agree with iLord's reasoning and conclusion, hence the vote on Kraj, but I still would like to know if that means you think iLord is town because of his post and whether Nom is still scummy or not and why you think these things.
If someone claims that they are an unlynchable, unkillable, octa-voter, with 4 daykills and 6 doc-protects, then technically lynching that person solely based on his claim would be gaming the mod, but I would be just fine doing that.
EBWODP, Actually, I think the answers are pretty obvious to my first question...it seems obvious that you agree with iLord's reasoning and conclusion, hence the vote on Kraj, but I still would like to know if that means you think iLord is town because of his post and whether Nom is still scummy or not and why you think these things.
It's a good question. I haven't decided yet who is town. Currently iLord is winning. His post was a great response to Kraj, including few things I couldn't put into words.
I grew wary of Kraj when Kraj said, "I think it makes you look worse; instead of just agreeing with a bad case, you first disagreed and then reversed." Because I think it makes iLord look BETTER.
I still have a scum read on Nom, nothing's changed there. Same with lurky Jskura.
It's a good question. I haven't decided yet who is town. Currently iLord is winning. His post was a great response to Kraj, including few things I couldn't put into words.
But you also had quite an easy list posted only 32 posts before that where you said:
So do you have a list, or do you not? and fyi, I have 2 posts in 2 days right now. Just because the rest of you can seemingly post any time of day, doesnt mean we all have that kind of time.
Also, under the things I really dont like about this game so far:
1) The amount of metagaming going on, especially towards people that havent played enough games to GET a meta on them.
2) Seppel. Although, I knew I wasnt going to like Seppel from reading a couple previous games. I just dont like the playstyle all that much. Within 100 posts, Seppel has wanted to see a lynch on the following people: Me, Gamerz, Nom, iLord, Kraj, and has voted for Llama (even though he's in the leaning town category)
3) The really early wagon on Gamerz. This was not only unwarrented (even if he did vote himself), but it tore us out of the RVS before a lot of people had actually confirmed. Considering I was called scum for "for trying to avoid having a random vote", how does it look when we have people that dont even have posts in the random phase?
W may only be paid with white mana. U may only be paid with blue mana. B may only be paid with black mana. R may only be paid with red mana. G may only be paid with green mana. C may only be paid with colorless mana. 1 may be paid with white, blue, black, red, green, or clolorless mana.
Jobie missed my vote on Llama, but I'll unvote anyway.
FYI: I'll rarely be able to do much (if anything) on weekends, so I'll try to compensate for it during the rest of the week.
I'm still liking Seppel. Also liking ZDS.
Feeling a little better about Gamerz the more he posts, but still a little concerned about his somewhat contradictory after-the-fact self-analysis about the self vote incident. The vote isn't that big a deal, but he can't seem to get his story straight on why he did it, or what he was thinking at the time. He's said that he figured they were going for reactions. But if he saw that from the start, why "call them out" (as I think iLord already pointed out)? I don't think this is worth pursuing at the moment though. He has remained pretty calm throughout the pressure, and I can understand getting flustered by early pressure, especially if you haven't experienced that before.
iLord's quick reversal on Gamerz doesn't especially bother me. His reasons for changing his mind seem genuine and justifiable.
Kraj's tone irks me though. It's been a while since I played, but I don't remember him ever being so goofy and jovial when I've played with him in the past. And the way he's doing it seems suspicious. For instance, the way he jokingly sets up a binary between iLord and Nom_Anor, like he just wants to put that idea out there with a feasible safety valve ("Joke!") just in case it comes back to bite him. It seems like he's trying to hard to appear harmless and nice. He also seems to have picked out Nom_Anor for picking-on, but his banter-like response to his questions gives me the feel that he doesn't really care, he just wants to be doing something rather than nothing.
Vote Kraj
I agree with ZDS's that jskura's above post seems strangely hostile. Mostly toward Seppel, but also toward the game moving out of random voting stage. What's the deal, jskura? Why the rant at Seppel for a passing accusation of your guilt? Why is the end of the random phase such a bother to you? Because someone called you scum for not participating in it enough? You seem awfully concerned with your image.
In Inheritance mafia, DesCoures made an argument that was utterly awful I decided it must be sincere because no scum would actually represent it as a valid argument. I'm having the same reaction to iLord's attack on me.
Mystifyingly, people are agreeing with it and so now I have to actually respond to it instead of rightfully dismissing it as ridiculous garbage.
There is nothing wrong with attacking someone that is already under attack unless you can explain why such an action is opportunistic, something you made no attempt to do.
First of all, opportunism isn't the only reason a scum will attack someone already under suspicion. Second of all, I don't really need to explain why I find something suspicious unless I'm gonna call you scum over it. Third of all, since I already explained that I felt your push and reversal on Gamerz was scummy, it is already implied that easing into another bandwagon without fully committing to it is in turn scummy. But since you pushed the issue, I'll break it down:
1. First you pushed very strongly on Gamerz and called him scum over evidence that was, at best, flimsy. It's one thing to identify something you find suspicious and apply pressure over it; it's another to repeatedly rail against a player and explain how every single thing they say is scummy like you did when the initial evidence is weak.
2. Then you (to use your own words) took "a glance at Basic #7 and 9" to see if the behavior you found suspicious fit his playstyle, found that for the most part it did, and unvoted. This looks to me like a very weak reason for backing off of someone you were attacking so strongly.
3. A couple of other players had attacked Nom_Anor at this point. You initially disagreed with their attacks but then made a very mild attack of your own (his explanation in response to your question wasn't "cutting it"). I voted Nom, he responded, ZDS said his response was bad, and then you also said his response was bad. There are two scummy things about this. First, instead of voting or even just stating your suspicion outright, you agreed with ZDS. That's called barning and it's scummy because it's a way of supporting an argument while making it look like someone else is the one making it. Second, at the time you added your attack to Nom, the only other player who had anything resembling a wagon forming was you. Seppel voted you, I made a clear statement on the suspiciousness of your actions, and BigLlama had expressed suspicions of you. It is quite possible a scum you would be worried that if Nom's wagon stalled the focus would shift to you.
Obviously at that point, I was not confident that Gamerz was scum.
You were confident enough to vote him and repeatedly argue with him, as well as argue that all his responses were scummy when I found them to be rather reasonable.
I'm not understanding what's wrong with forming said "laundry list"
Because it's pretty darn rare for everything someone says to be scummy - even when they're scum. When you've got a whole stack of reasons why someone is scum 40 posts into the game, those reasons aren't all that great but you're treating them like they are, it smacks of insincerity. I looks a lot like pressuring a new player and hoping he implodes.
What a shock. Sadly OMGUS isn't a very reliable tell, especially for you, but c'mon. Blatant OMGUS is blatant. Stop to think that maybe you're having an emotional reaction here?
This is what first caught my eye - the fact that he mentioned how scummy he viewed me, calling me "awfully scummy," and then voting Nom_Anor for not recognizing said scumminess and his poor attack on Gamerz. While admittedly the latter reason is valid, it would appear that his initial analysis of me weighs for more scummily than Nom_Anor's weak attack.
OK, so you just admitted my reasoning was valid but are calling me scum because you think my argument against you is stronger than my argument against Nom. Lemme ask you something: If I'm scum and you're town, and the strongest argument I have against someone is you, why wouldn't I just attack you? If I wanted to get on Nom's wagon, why bother commenting about you at all?
The thing here is that Kraj realizes this. He adds additional reasoning, calling upon a common pattern in mafia games to further justify his choice. Unfortunately, his example here reveals a disconnect in his reasoning. He cites three roles in his example: the loud townie, the scummy townie, and the quiet scum. Since he attributed the role of the quiet scum to Nom_Anor, it doesn't make any sense to call me scum since I would fill the role of either the loud or scummy townie.
First of all, your first sentence does not fit with the rest of the paragraph. The paragraph reiterates my reasoning as to why Nom Anor is the scummier looking one, but in the first sentence you say I "realize that my initial analysis of you weighs for more scummily than Nom_Anor's weak attack". Your explanation proves the opposite of what you are claiming.
Secondly, I didn't call you scum, I said you looked scummy. That indicates you could either be filling the role of the loud/scummy townie, or you could just plain be scum. I don't have enough information yet to make a confident decision.
Thirdly, it absolutely makes sense to call you scummy in this scenario. If there is no one playing the part of "scummy-looking townie" then there is no basis for suspecting anyone as the "quiet scum". There is little basis for me suspecting Nom Anor in this situation unless I find you scummy. You could be simply the loud townie rather than the scummy townie and still fit the pattern (indeed, I'd pretty much guarantee there are townies being loud right now and scum being quiet observers, fulfilling the pattern), but in this situation a key part of what caught my eye about Nom is that he barned your scummy argument. If I didn't find your argument scummy, I wouldn't be suspicious of Nom for agreeing with it (though he did still barn you, which is a little suspicious regardless).
I have a question for you: you have demonstrated here that you really do not understand the logic I was using at all. When you earlier said my reasoning in thinking Nom is scummy was valid, what did you think my reasoning was?
Again, Kraj realizes that and decides to supplement this with my tendency to get caught early as scum by acting scummy (Notably making the above example completely pointless, indicating it was considered afterwards).
This, coupled with his last assertion that Nom_Anor comes out scummier indicates that Kraj is attempting to fabricate his degree of suspicion on Nom_Anor and me. The "But I think" portion of the last line solidifies this reasoning, as that is hardly something to say after giving a logical train of thought (Like if someone says A=B, B=C, "but I think" A=C), but rather one said after declaring information contrasting to the conclusion.
The problem with this assessment is that the equations are missing the actual logic operator: IF. IF A=B, and B=C, then A=C. I still need to decide whether I believe A=B. Further, it's pretty rare to have the certainty of = in this game.
Or to de-obfuscate the point, my suspicion of Nom makes the most sense with you being town, but it's hardly enough to conclude you're town.
Why Kraj is attempting to appear more suspicious of Nom_Anor I'm not sure (A variety of reasons would cover it), but I'm confident that Kraj is making up this suspicion. His second post begins to move on to attack me, even going as far as saying that "I'm pretty sure one of these two will be today's lynch," making it obvious that since his initial post, Kraj was ready to keep his foot on both wagons.
This is in response to Nom_Anor stating that he initially disagreed with my case, saying that I was trying too hard (to look town, I assume), which is ironically what Kraj believes as well.
I never said that I thought you were "trying too hard to look town". I said you were pushing a case harder than you had a basis for. That's not trying too hard to look town, that's trying too hard to get someone lynched.
The fact that Kraj didn't even bother to look certainly makes it unlikely that he actually believes Nom_Anor is scum.
I didn't bother to look because it is irrelevant, which I thought was pretty clear about. I don't really feel the need to argue about what Nom's original opinion on your case was when his original opinion on your case has nothing to do with my point. Especially when even if he's telling the truth it makes him look worse to me.
Preview: DragonDart, take a look at the start of Janus mafia. I was far more goofy and jovial there. I'm trying to actually have fun playing this game and not take it so seriously.
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 like Kraj's post. It's rather aggressive, but in the irritated kind of way, and feels genuine to me. He's right about iLord being very back and forth with his opinions, but I don't feel that it makes iLord scum, especially when most of his points are why iLord's incorrect, rather than scummy.
Other than his flip-flopping, I have no problems with iLord. He's a bit too mailable, but I don't think he's scum. I don't have as strong a town read as on Kraj and Seppel, but he's more on the leaning town side than leaning scum side for me.
Who I still think is scum is Gamerz. Note his latest model:
Quote from Gamerz »
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? You confuse the living daylights out of me, Seppel. Something tells you that you get a kick out of doing that sort of thing too.
Is it too much to ask for an explanation for how you went from 'iLord or Nom are scum' to 'Kraj is scum'? Do you think iLord is town now? Do you think Nom is still scum?
Giving iLord's post a quick read-through, I think I see what he's saying about Kraj, but I'm gonna sleep on it and read it again in the morning to see if I get a more clear picture.
Good way to wait for other people to give their opinions by avoiding saying anything definite about Kraj, iLord, and me.
I don't know if nom is town or scum. But I'd like to point out this type of behavior is his standard modus operandi.
Court Mafia: Day 1, hatch plan to KILL EVERYONE ELSE IN A SINGLE NIGHT, when the plan only allows him to hit 11 random players, ATTEMPTS TO FIRE ANYHOW (Roleblocked).
In other words....Nom is an impulsive player who doesn't think about planning long-term or listening to others. I wouldn't be surprised if he was town. At all.
2) Seppel. Although, I knew I wasnt going to like Seppel from reading a couple previous games. I just dont like the playstyle all that much. Within 100 posts, Seppel has wanted to see a lynch on the following people: Me, Gamerz, Nom, iLord, Kraj, and has voted for Llama (even though he's in the leaning town category)
3) The really early wagon on Gamerz. This was not only unwarrented (even if he did vote himself), but it tore us out of the RVS before a lot of people had actually confirmed. Considering I was called scum for "for trying to avoid having a random vote", how does it look when we have people that dont even have posts in the random phase?
A little overprotective of Gamerz for no reason. Concern about image. Unjustified anger.
Unvote, vote Jskura
Hm? On the contrary, did I not at first say iLord's case wasn't that great?
Possibly. Didn't bother to look, but if this is accurate, how is this a good thing? I think it makes you look worse; instead of just agreeing with a bad case, you first disagreed and then reversed. Boo! Hiss!
Quote from me »
It was hardly iLord's case against gamerz that got me voting for him--though he did have a point that gamerz voting himself to releave pressure--but Skander's defensive post.
Eh? I'll assume "Skander" is a misspeak here and you meant Gamerz, in which case, you still framed your post primarily as agreeing with iLord rather than owning your opinion.
Quote from me »
And yes, it was really defensive. Responding to every piece of another players laundry list is fine, but on page 2?
It bothers you that someone responded to a laundry list of points against them on page 2, but it doesn't bother you that someone formed a laundry list of points on someone by page 2?
Quote from me »
It's like he was back to the wall over three votes in the somewhat-random voting stage.
Are you making that assessment based just on the fact that he responded, or was it the tone of the response?
Found them:
1&2. Have I not explained this like 8 times. I did not agree with iLord. Then Gamerz made his scummy defensive post and I decided he was scummy. Note iLord does not have a wholly compelling post but does give a good point, which combined with Gamerz's post makes me vote for him.
And sorry about the name mixup.
3. No, it isn't scummy to make a laundry list of attacks on page 2. It's odd, sure, but I would expect scum to be somewhat more reserved than that. I find seriously replying to each and every one of the points to be far more scummy.
4. Both. It's far too apologetic and too deeply thought about.
I don't know if nom is town or scum. But I'd like to point out this type of behavior is his standard modus operandi.
Court Mafia: Day 1, hatch plan to KILL EVERYONE ELSE IN A SINGLE NIGHT, when the plan only allows him to hit 11 random players, ATTEMPTS TO FIRE ANYHOW (Roleblocked).
In other words....Nom is an impulsive player who doesn't think about planning long-term or listening to others. I wouldn't be surprised if he was town. At all.
Why did you vote Nom_Anor over iLord ? (please be short and to-the-point)
I was suspicious of iLord because his push on gamerz felt insincere, for the reasons I've already explained.
I was suspicious of Nom Anor because he barned iLord's push while I was so suspicious of it, he did it in a way that kept focus on iLord as the primary pusher, he did so immediately after voting iLord for apparently making a scummy push on gamerz, and the reason he gave for doing so was nonsense (defensiveness).
Figure that into my observation that scum love to quietly let loud townies lynch each other, and I felt much more suspicious of Nom than iLord.
He's right about iLord being very back and forth with his opinions, but I don't feel that it makes iLord scum, especially when most of his points are why iLord's incorrect, rather than scummy.
That would be a big reason why I'm not calling iLord scum.
1&2. Have I not explained this like 8 times. I did not agree with iLord. Then Gamerz made his scummy defensive post and I decided he was scummy. Note iLord does not have a wholly compelling post but does give a good point, which combined with Gamerz's post makes me vote for him.
That would be agreeing. Even if you simply meant you agree that gamerz is scummy, the point isn't whether you agreed with the content of iLord's case the point is that you presented your suspicion as agreement with iLord. That's barning.
3. No, it isn't scummy to make a laundry list of attacks on page 2. It's odd, sure, but I would expect scum to be somewhat more reserved than that. I find seriously replying to each and every one of the points to be far more scummy.
Interestingly, replying to each and every one of the points is precisely what I just did with iLord - perhaps even to a fault - and yet you said you liked my response. Why was I genuine while gamerz was defensive?
4. Both. It's far too apologetic and too deeply thought about.
To me you've just described a newer player trying not to screw up rather than someone who overreacted to being attacked, which is what defensive means.
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.
3) The really early wagon on Gamerz. This was not only unwarrented (even if he did vote himself), but it tore us out of the RVS before a lot of people had actually confirmed. Considering I was called scum for "for trying to avoid having a random vote", how does it look when we have people that dont even have posts in the random phase?
I don't see how getting us out of the RVS is scummy.
Quote from Kraj »
In Inheritance mafia, DesCoures made an argument that was utterly awful I decided it must be sincere because no scum would actually represent it as a valid argument. I'm having the same reaction to iLord's attack on me.
It is foolish for even mediocre scum to push attacks that they don't believe is valid. Scum that start wagons typically find some type of point that they feel is legit and push their attack there. I don't know about dC's case specifically but I doubt that he didn't believe his argument was valid, at least at the onset of his attack.
Quote from Kraj »
Annoying? Your opinion. Incorrect? Well:
Annoying in that it fools people.
Quote from Kraj »
First of all, opportunism isn't the only reason a scum will attack someone already under suspicion. Second of all, I don't really need to explain why I find something suspicious unless I'm gonna call you scum over it. Third of all, since I already explained that I felt your push and reversal on Gamerz was scummy, it is already implied that easing into another bandwagon without fully committing to it is in turn scummy. But since you pushed the issue, I'll break it down:
I assume opportunism is what you're accusing me over here. The standard progression that I sort of fastforwarded through here is:
Kraj: You're dipping your toe on the bandwagon.
iLord: So I'm not allowed to attack other people under attack?
Kraj: No, it's just the way you attacked him was scummy.
There's no basis in saying that me attacking Nom_Anor is scummy without explaining how I'm attacking him is scummy, as obviously the scenario is not sufficient. Are you saying that as a townie, I should avoid stating my suspicion of another player (That is under suspicion) unless I feel I can fully commit?
Quote from Kraj »
1. First you pushed very strongly on Gamerz and called him scum over evidence that was, at best, flimsy. It's one thing to identify something you find suspicious and apply pressure over it; it's another to repeatedly rail against a player and explain how every single thing they say is scummy like you did when the initial evidence is weak.
This argument itself is incredibly "flimsy." What is the difference between applying pressure and calling scum? You have make who you're attacking feel like you think they're scum to place pressure. A light accusation is almost completely pointless in this regard.
In this case, the points were even all valid, though obviously of varying strengths.
Quote from Kraj »
2. Then you (to use your own words) took "a glance at Basic #7 and 9" to see if the behavior you found suspicious fit his playstyle, found that for the most part it did, and unvoted. This looks to me like a very weak reason for backing off of someone you were attacking so strongly.
Again, this type of argument is not valid unless you can explain why. Am I to avoid changing my mind in such a situation because it's scummy?
"This looks to me" is suspiciously softer than your first point, making it obvious your belief on the objectivity of this point.
Quote from Kraj »
3. A couple of other players had attacked Nom_Anor at this point. You initially disagreed with their attacks but then made a very mild attack of your own (his explanation in response to your question wasn't "cutting it"). I voted Nom, he responded, ZDS said his response was bad, and then you also said his response was bad. There are two scummy things about this. First, instead of voting or even just stating your suspicion outright, you agreed with ZDS. That's called barning and it's scummy because it's a way of supporting an argument while making it look like someone else is the one making it. Second, at the time you added your attack to Nom, the only other player who had anything resembling a wagon forming was you. Seppel voted you, I made a clear statement on the suspiciousness of your actions, and BigLlama had expressed suspicions of you. It is quite possible a scum you would be worried that if Nom's wagon stalled the focus would shift to you.
I disagree that barning is always scummy. In fact, I've found that more often scum try to take someone else's point and pretend for it to be their own. That, and I'm completely at lost as to why I would want to pretend that my attack wasn't my point - there was very little indication that doing so would be in anyway favorable to scumMe.
The second is a valid motive. You need to demonstrate how I indicated that I had such a motive, rather than just give a possible explanation.
Quote from Kraj »
You were confident enough to vote him and repeatedly argue with him, as well as argue that all his responses were scummy when I found them to be rather reasonable.
You do not have to be confident that someone was scum to vote him and repeatedly argue with him. It doesn't matter that you found his responses to reasonable - that's completely unrelated to this point.
Quote from Kraj »
Because it's pretty darn rare for everything someone says to be scummy - even when they're scum. When you've got a whole stack of reasons why someone is scum 40 posts into the game, those reasons aren't all that great but you're treating them like they are, it smacks of insincerity. I looks a lot like pressuring a new player and hoping he implodes.
I still don't get what's wrong with this, other than you apparently view it as insecure (An argument that holds no weight whatsoever). Do we not hope that a new player implodes under pressure - that's why we apply pressure in the first place.
Quote from Kraj »
No, but it wouldn't hurt
Actually it very well could. I much rather have a player like Seppel pointing at everything than one that doesn't say anything at all until they're sure, which could very well never happen.
Quote from Kraj »
What a shock. Sadly OMGUS isn't a very reliable tell, especially for you, but c'mon. Blatant OMGUS is blatant. Stop to think that maybe you're having an emotional reaction here?
Why is OMGUS not a reliable tell for me, specifically?
I love how you're trying to pass off my case as an emotional reaction, while ironically trying not to accuse me back (Despite how scummy you apparently view me) because you yourself are afraid of being accused of OMGUS.
OK, so you just admitted my reasoning was valid but are calling me scum because you think my argument against you is stronger than my argument against Nom. Lemme ask you something: If I'm scum and you're town, and the strongest argument I have against someone is you, why wouldn't I just attack you? If I wanted to get on Nom's wagon, why bother commenting about you at all?
I'll admit that I'm not sure why your attacking Nom over me but a variety of reasons would suffice, including ones that you've already attempted to use against me. Maybe you do not want responsibility for my mislynch. Maybe you want to distance from scumNom. Maybe you feel that the town's more sympathetic to a Nom lynch. I don't know what you're thinking.
Quote from Kraj »
First of all, your first sentence does not fit with the rest of the paragraph. The paragraph reiterates my reasoning as to why Nom Anor is the scummier looking one, but in the first sentence you say I "realize that my initial analysis of you weighs for more scummily than Nom_Anor's weak attack". Your explanation proves the opposite of what you are claiming.
I'm not understanding quite what your saying here, but I think it's because you misinterpreted the intent of my paragraph by reading only half of it.
Quote from Kraj »
Secondly, I didn't call you scum, I said you looked scummy. That indicates you could either be filling the role of the loud/scummy townie, or you could just plain be scum. I don't have enough information yet to make a confident decision.
No - I couldn't fill the role of scum because you've already attributed that to Nom in your reasoning.
Quote from Kraj »
Thirdly, it absolutely makes sense to call you scummy in this scenario. If there is no one playing the part of "scummy-looking townie" then there is no basis for suspecting anyone as the "quiet scum". There is little basis for me suspecting Nom Anor in this situation unless I find you scummy. You could be simply the loud townie rather than the scummy townie and still fit the pattern (indeed, I'd pretty much guarantee there are townies being loud right now and scum being quiet observers, fulfilling the pattern), but in this situation a key part of what caught my eye about Nom is that he barned your scummy argument. If I didn't find your argument scummy, I wouldn't be suspicious of Nom for agreeing with it (though he did still barn you, which is a little suspicious regardless).
The point here is that regardless which role you have me filling, it can't be the scum one that Nom's filling. We apparently have different definitions here, but avoiding use of the word "scummy," it makes no sense for you to believe I am scum in this scenario.
Quote from Kraj »
I have a question for you: you have demonstrated here that you really do not understand the logic I was using at all. When you earlier said my reasoning in thinking Nom is scummy was valid, what did you think my reasoning was?
You think barning is scummy (Which quite realistically, is up to argument whether or not Nom_Anor did so) and you believe that he does not actually view Gamerz post as defensive.
Quote from Kraj »
I think this has been covered.
No, I don't believe it has been covered. What is the point of mentioning the example if you are going to invalidate it by mentioning that I don't follow this pattern?
Quote from Kraj »
The problem with this assessment is that the equations are missing the actual logic operator: IF. IF A=B, and B=C, then A=C. I still need to decide whether I believe A=B. Further, it's pretty rare to have the certainty of = in this game.
Or to de-obfuscate the point, my suspicion of Nom makes the most sense with you being town, but it's hardly enough to conclude you're town.
Regardless of the level of certainty, "IF A=B and B=C," "but I think" is still not something you say after correlating information. Key word here is not "I think," but "but," which typically implies contrast.
To similarly clear this up, you introduce an argument about why Nom is more likely to be scum than me. You would hardly add "But I think" before you conclusion stating that you believe Nom is more likely to be scum than me.
Quote from Kraj »
Well duh. See above.
You do not see what's scummy about having your foot on both wagons? I can see a lot of benefit for the scum to have such a motive.
Quote from Kraj »
I never said that I thought you were "trying too hard to look town". I said you were pushing a case harder than you had a basis for. That's not trying too hard to look town, that's trying too hard to get someone lynched.
I'll admit that I misinterpreted you here then, but your attack is still invalid. We've covered this above, but I will not that I completely disbelieve that you actually believed that I wanted Gamerz lynched at that point.
Quote from Kraj »
I didn't bother to look because it is irrelevant, which I thought was pretty clear about. I don't really feel the need to argue about what Nom's original opinion on your case was when his original opinion on your case has nothing to do with my point. Especially when even if he's telling the truth it makes him look worse to me.
Part of the point here was that you were too lazy to read all two of your target's posts before attacking. The other part is invalidated, as I misinterpreted the nature of your suspicion of me.
Quote from Kraj »
Metafail. I'm never lazy.
Lazy is perhaps too harsh. More accurately, I believe that townKraj would've actually taken the time to read both of Nom_Anor's posts before attacking him, although I will agree that since his reasoning is not the same as yours (As I had initially perceived it to be) that this point really isn't significant.
Contrary to DD, I don't believe that Kraj is any less serious that he normally is here.
Quote from Seppel »
Psst, your scumminess is showing:
"Honestly" is a weak tell at best, as some people like me use it as both town and scum (DYH specifically mentioned Points Mafia for me when he was trying to help me defend against similar accusations in Inheritance).
In this case, however, it's not even valid. It has to be in a position where it indicates that the player is giving his true opinion (Theoretically in contrast to his standard falsified opinions).
Quote from Seppel »
A little overprotective of Gamerz for no reason. Concern about image. Unjustified anger.
Unvote, vote Jskura
Agree about the anger, but I don't see why that's indicative of scum, as I could see both town and scum mindsets for being mad. Don't see the overprotectiveness or concern about image. Disagree that he's scummy.
-----------------------------
ZDS and Kraj both have good point against Nom_Anor, like the discrepancy between his view of Gamerz and Kraj's posts, as well as his vote on me not working with his stated opinion. Not sure about his relationship to Kraj though, and I can't tell whether or not they're on the same side.
It appears as if he is trying to appease Kraj, which is consistent with the town read he says to have on him. It also fits well into the scenario where he, as scum, would want to keep his main attacker cool ; or into the scenario where he, as town, doesn't want to fight another townie. As for the scenario where they are both scum, there's nothing really going against it, but there's nothing going for it, either.
So it goes like this: N_A is scum and Kraj town > they are both town > they are both scum. (which means Kraj will look very good after we lynch N_A and he rolls up scum)
I would love to see how people would Meta me, since I have only 1 completed game under my belt right now, and I am still living in all my current games. Considering how badly I played that one game, you think I wouldnt change my playstyle?
In regards to my "angry" post. It wasnt meant to come off angry, but I can definitely see how it could. I'm just not a fan of Seppel's playstyle (nice to see it's gone full circle and it's back on me again though :rolleyes:). There was a lot of random Seppel voting that was going on, and I can see how it might prove to be useful later in the game, so I guess it could always be taken as a good thing.
I'm definitely torn on the iLord/Kraj thing going on right now.
W may only be paid with white mana. U may only be paid with blue mana. B may only be paid with black mana. R may only be paid with red mana. G may only be paid with green mana. C may only be paid with colorless mana. 1 may be paid with white, blue, black, red, green, or clolorless mana.
Good way to wait for other people to give their opinions by avoiding saying anything definite about Kraj, iLord, and me.
You don't believe my last sentence, I guess, eh?
I wanted Seppel's opinion because his way of going back and forth on who he thinks is scum seems so odd to me. Kraj posts, Seppel immediately says he's town...with no explanation. He then mentions not long after that either Nom or iLord are scum. iLord then posts his reasons for Kraj's scumminess, and Seppel immediately votes Kraj. I posted so that I could get a clearer understanding of Seppel's reasoning for why he was doing that.
His response to me is still...well, does Seppel usually act this way? The way he mentions how iLord is 'winning' in towniness tells me that he's not taking things that seriously yet. Especially combined with what I was just previously saying.
Now, regarding Kraj and iLord (and Nom):
First off, these long posts are giving me a headache. Not that I have a problem with them, per se, because, well, reading is something that's obviously required for this game, but geeeez, the contrast between this and the newb games is definitely noticeable.
Kraj's first post contrasts greatly with his later longer ones...it seems like he wasn't prepared to have to defend himself.
Regarding it's content, I don't think that iLord's attack on me was unreasonable at all. And I certainly don't agree with him in that iLord is 'very scummy' (and I like iLord's point that Kraj calls iLord's actions 'very scummy' yet votes for Nom...does that make Nom 'very very scummy'?). iLord's case on Kraj has, in my opinion, some merit to it - like the point I just mentioned. I also agree with his point about Kraj's 'but I think'
And reading things over (and over (and over))), Kraj claims that he isn't calling iLord scummy at all, and his first long post, he seems to be taking careful steps not to infer at all that iLord is, in fact, scum. Yet, his post just before that, he calls out iLord for joining in on Nom's bandwagon...seeming to take glee in wondering which of the 2 of them will get lynched first. How is this not inferring that iLord is scum and not just 'scummy'?
Regarding Nom, I'm on the fence, but leaning scum. I don't like that he's basically been going after me for just for being defensive, but that's more just because it annoys me as opposed to because I think it's scummy. Kraj's reasons for voting him give me pause though, and I didn't like how weakly he defended bman. He also early on mentions that he's getting a 'town read' on Seppel, but is not sure on him yet; then later mentions that he's got a 'strong read' when comparing him to iLord.
If someone claims that they are an unlynchable, unkillable, octa-voter, with 4 daykills and 6 doc-protects, then technically lynching that person solely based on his claim would be gaming the mod, but I would be just fine doing that.
Hmm, I'm rereading, and it looks like I don't like Kraj. ZDS is correct that Kraj v Nom doesn't seem like busing/distancing, and there's really no question that Nom_Anor is lying (In particular, the disconnect between his early vote against me and his latest explanation of how he viewed me). Kraj is definitely reading scummy to me, but I think part of that may just be I want to read him scum.
I'm going to look over the Kraj v Me arguments again.
Crap, did not notice timing of posts. There goes my theory.
FOS: bman65
My Custom Set: Solescurio
His attempt to alleviate pressure does not appear to have a precedent, but his continued stressing that he has learned his lesson not to self-vote suggests that such an action was experimental.
At this point, the only part I'm suspicious of why Gamerz was so worried about the early pressure, as that doesn't fit his light posting style at all.
Unvote, Gamerz
My Custom Set: Solescurio
Hmm, I'm not reading anything that says they aren't on the same time, especially since bman's attack was so weak and thoughtless.
I'll wait for Nom_Anor to explain why he didn't agree with me in the first place before trying to determine his thought process there.
My Custom Set: Solescurio
Do note that the wiki is outdated, and yes, was written by me a long time ago.
What Nom_Anor is trying to saw here is that he thinks I"m trying too hard to look town, which doesn't appear to be what you're saying here. Can you elaborate on your opinion of the analysis itself, rather than my alignment?
My Custom Set: Solescurio
I already unvoted Gamerz.
Agreed.
Pretty much.
I've already developed that Gamerz is town. You are being too slow to realize this and I find this improper of you.
Unvote, vote iLord
I don't ever see iLord being aggressive unless he's scum. And when he's agressive, he's poorly agressive. In this case, towards Gamerz.
The Seppelbrain:
TOWN
Gamerz
DragonDart
LIKELY TOWN
BMan
Zebi
Kraj
BigLlama
UNDECIDED
WoD
ZDS
SCUM
Jskura
Nom_Amor
iLord
As we're out of the random stage.
Guys, we shouldn't lynch this fast. Gamerz got targeted by like, page 2, and everyone's wagoning him for defending himself. If I got targeted that early, I'd defend myself too.
Sign up for League of Legends!
Again, we disagree. From my experience, there's two type of "busing" that scum usually do. One type is the absolute pull-out-all-the-stops to get that player lynched push, like my entire scum did to me on Day 1 of Inheritance Mafia. The other style is distancing, which is usually pretty evenly split between weak attacks and small scumtells, depending mostly on the experience of the scum in question.
In this case, I wouldn't expect bman to pull about subtle scum tells in an attempt to bus Nom_Anor, but his weak attack could very well be distancing.
However, I'm not really seeing the connection right now - I just don't see anything against such a connection between bman and Nom_Anor.
My Custom Set: Solescurio
That's hardly a fair observation, considering the only game I've played with you, I was scum.
My Custom Set: Solescurio
Considering that I was obv town all through the game we both played in, how could you possibly figure out what my playstyle is like when I'm under pressure?
How is Kraj 'likely town'? He has even posted yet. And jskura as scum already? Is this based off of your early tell of him voting himself? You jump to conclusions waaaay too quickly.
Bman doesn't seem like mafia to me. He made a mistake, but other than that, he hasn't been lurking like he was when mafia.
I'm liking Zebi. He's been very level minded, and I like the fact he's been telling us to slow down.
This doesn't answer much - what parts of my first post did you not agree with, why did it feel like I was picking off of nothing, and how was Gamerz's last post "ultra-defensive."
I actually scanned over Kingmaker. Don't see the correlation you're pointing out here. In fact, one of the things I noted from that was that I couldn't just assume that Seppel is town in this game like I usually do, because (Contrary to what I believed) he does not adopt a noticeable change of posting style (Other than his like of posting "I'M TOWN" a bunch like he did in Inheritance).
You gotta explain some more, because this isn't cutting it.
My Custom Set: Solescurio
His questions to me was fair, I found. I certainly don't fault him for making a case against me. And you didn't explain why you thought my post was 'defensive'.
He's been under some questioning since his first post...he hasn't really had a chance to lurk behind the scenes yet. Not to mention that it seems like a really weak tell to be declaring someone 'not mafia' on. Especially this early.
My point is this: I was obvtown in basic 7...I was never under any pressure at all. Yet, when comparing my play now to that game, Bman mentions that I never dodged or evaded any questions, which doesn't make sense to me, since I never had that opportunity in the previous game anyways.
Following me here?
what
Star Trek EU.
Oh, I screwed up the Likely Town and Unknown or whatever.
I'm like 90-95% accurate when someone is at L-2. I may jump to conclusions, but I'M RIGHT.
And I did not play aggressively then? If memory serves, my posting style hasn't really changed since then.
My Custom Set: Solescurio
Gamerz (2) - WoD, Nom_Amor
Zebi (1) - Jskura
WoD (1) - ZDS
Seppel (1) - Biglllllama
iLord (1) - Seppel
Not Voting: Kraj, DD, Bman, iLord, Gamerz, Zebi
Let me know if I made any mistakes.
Random Mafia 2 Town MVP
'08 MTGS Fantasy Football Overall Champion
Best Non-SK Neutral Performance (Individual)
Nope, you did not. As I recall, you were very passive and mostly analytical there, providing information for everyone.
unvote
My Custom Set: Solescurio
*chuckle*
Seppel is probably just used to putting me in that category after doing so for about 5 months in Inheritance.
No indication that Gamerz is scum as far as I'm concerned.
iLord, however, made an overly deep case and treated it conclusively to an absurd degree. And then backed off over an extremely flimsy meta analysis. iLord is awfully scummy here.
Nom_Anor, however, doesn't seem to recognize the scumminess of iLord's behavior at all and instead barns him. He also calls Gamerz out for being "far too defensive" when all he's done is respond to each point brought against him. This fits an extremely common pattern in games here: loud townies dominate the conversation, the scummy-looking ones garner all the attention, the actual scum sit back and quietly let them lynch each other. The fun little monkey wrench in that pattern is iLord in particular tends to get caught for looking scummy early on when he's actually scum. But I think Nom_Anor comes out looking the worst from all of this.
Vote: Nom_Anor
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
Have you played with Gamerz before? If you look at his games, a lot of what I was attacking for, like the non-confrontational language and the senseless self-vote, can be explained by how he plays.
My Custom Set: Solescurio
Hm? On the contrary, did I not at first say iLord's case wasn't that great? It was hardly iLord's case against gamerz that got me voting for him--though he did have a point that gamerz voting himself to releave pressure--but Skander's defensive post.
And yes, it was really defensive. Responding to every piece of another players laundry list is fine, but on page 2? It's like he was back to the wall over three votes in the somewhat-random voting stage.
@Gamerz,
Thank you. I understand what you mean now.
I'm confused now by what you mean. I don't see bman's attack against Nom_Anor as bussing, which I think you agree with. However, I'm not seeing why it necessarily implies that they cannot be on the same team, as bman could very well be attacking Nom_Anor to distance himself from him.
You do know that the third vote was his own, correct? Three votes sounds a lot better than two, doesn't it?
ZDS is correct that this a completely flimsy reason for explaining your vote, and smells suspiciously like an excuse.
My Custom Set: Solescurio
Yeah, that's what I was saying - I didn't read any indication that they were distancing but I disagreed with you read that they were on different alignments.
My Custom Set: Solescurio
Like I said before, I found his case on me fair. He was asking me good questions and seemed to me to trying to dig deeper to see what kind of mindset I had for what I was doing in the early game.
But...while I am indeed non-confrontational in general, I don't quite agree with him that my 'senseless self-vote' can be explained by my play. I've basically finished 1 and a half games, so it can hardly be determined that I would do something like that as either scum or town.
I'm not thinking at this point that he's as scummy as you think he seems to be.
And I find his response to you lacking. All he really does is just define what 'defensive' is.
From the games that I've played so far, this definitely seems to be the case. So, for that matter...everyone else care to jump in and speak your piece about what's happened so far?
The point isn't whether or not to determine if such an action is a town or scum tell (And so doing so would be almost impossible through meta considering that in both games you've been town), but to determine whether or not your behavior is something that is out of character for you. Based on your behavior in prior games and your repeated assertion that you have learned your lesson not to self-vote this game, I concluded that most of your behavior that I had initially perceived to be scummy as a null tell, and that your self-vote was largely an experimental action.
My Custom Set: Solescurio
A big deal is being made out of what happened in the random phase.
I don't feel that anyone has done anything extremely scummy yet, and the stuff that happened in the random phase, along with the reactions, were just as they should be at that point - random. Obviously there's been a few people who are louder than the others, drawing all the attention. I would post more, but I don't feel like I have much place in this conversation until I can make a decision as to who I feel is scummy.
Sign up for League of Legends!
Possibly. Didn't bother to look, but if this is accurate, how is this a good thing? I think it makes you look worse; instead of just agreeing with a bad case, you first disagreed and then reversed. Boo! Hiss!
Eh? I'll assume "Skander" is a misspeak here and you meant Gamerz, in which case, you still framed your post primarily as agreeing with iLord rather than owning your opinion.
It bothers you that someone responded to a laundry list of points against them on page 2, but it doesn't bother you that someone formed a laundry list of points on someone by page 2?
Are you making that assessment based just on the fact that he responded, or was it the tone of the response?
Oh goodie: now iLord is dipping his toe in Nom's bandwagon. I'm pretty sure one of these two will be today's lynch. Figuring out which one should be fun!
I'll need to reread more closely to see if I agree with you on that, but my issue isn't with whether his points against you were accurate, it is with how conclusively he treated them. A point might be fair, but that doesn't mean it's strong enough to call someone scum. This early in the game it's reasonable to latch on something small you think is scummy and attack someone for it, but to break down pretty much every single thing someone says and call it scummy 40 posts into the game... it's totally overboard.
Well the thing is early on in the game you'll rarely have enough information to come to a confident conclusion. If you wait until you're confident before making an opinion, you won't be talking much. We don't like that. So: tell us what you think so far. If you feel people are overreacting, who looks to be overreacting in the scummiest way? If no one, why not? Do you think anyone avoided forming an opinion in a suspicious way? Even if you don't have a strong opinion, you must have some opinion.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
This type of argument is both incorrect and incredibly annoying. There is nothing wrong with attacking someone that is already under attack unless you can explain why such an action is opportunistic, something you made no attempt to do.
Obviously at that point, I was not confident that Gamerz was scum. I'm not understanding what's wrong with forming said "laundry list" - Why is going "totally overboard" indicative of scum?
Do I have to be confident a player is scum before calling that player scum?
---------------------------------
Kraj stinks of scum at this point. His first post:
This is what first caught my eye - the fact that he mentioned how scummy he viewed me, calling me "awfully scummy," and then voting Nom_Anor for not recognizing said scumminess and his poor attack on Gamerz. While admittedly the latter reason is valid, it would appear that his initial analysis of me weighs for more scummily than Nom_Anor's weak attack.
The thing here is that Kraj realizes this. He adds additional reasoning, calling upon a common pattern in mafia games to further justify his choice. Unfortunately, his example here reveals a disconnect in his reasoning. He cites three roles in his example: the loud townie, the scummy townie, and the quiet scum. Since he attributed the role of the quiet scum to Nom_Anor, it doesn't make any sense to call me scum since I would fill the role of either the loud or scummy townie.
Again, Kraj realizes that and decides to supplement this with my tendency to get caught early as scum by acting scummy (Notably making the above example completely pointless, indicating it was considered afterwards). This, coupled with his last assertion that Nom_Anor comes out scummier indicates that Kraj is attempting to fabricate his degree of suspicion on Nom_Anor and me. The "But I think" portion of the last line solidifies this reasoning, as that is hardly something to say after giving a logical train of thought (Like if someone says A=B, B=C, "but I think" A=C), but rather one said after declaring information contrasting to the conclusion.
Why Kraj is attempting to appear more suspicious of Nom_Anor I'm not sure (A variety of reasons would cover it), but I'm confident that Kraj is making up this suspicion. His second post begins to move on to attack me, even going as far as saying that "I'm pretty sure one of these two will be today's lynch," making it obvious that since his initial post, Kraj was ready to keep his foot on both wagons.
Further indication from his last post indicates that his attack on Nom and me was not genuine.
This is in response to Nom_Anor stating that he initially disagreed with my case, saying that I was trying too hard (to look town, I assume), which is ironically what Kraj believes as well. The fact that Kraj didn't even bother to look certainly makes it unlikely that he actually believes Nom_Anor is scum. TownKraj is not this lazy.
Vote: Kraj
My Custom Set: Solescurio
iLord's post above fills me with relief.
Unvote, vote Kraj
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? You confuse the living daylights out of me, Seppel. Something tells you that you get a kick out of doing that sort of thing too.
Is it too much to ask for an explanation for how you went from 'iLord or Nom are scum' to 'Kraj is scum'? Do you think iLord is town now? Do you think Nom is still scum?
Giving iLord's post a quick read-through, I think I see what he's saying about Kraj, but I'm gonna sleep on it and read it again in the morning to see if I get a more clear picture.
It's a good question. I haven't decided yet who is town. Currently iLord is winning. His post was a great response to Kraj, including few things I couldn't put into words.
I grew wary of Kraj when Kraj said, "I think it makes you look worse; instead of just agreeing with a bad case, you first disagreed and then reversed." Because I think it makes iLord look BETTER.
I still have a scum read on Nom, nothing's changed there. Same with lurky Jskura.
Now, Seppel, you recently said:
But you also had quite an easy list posted only 32 posts before that where you said:
So do you have a list, or do you not? and fyi, I have 2 posts in 2 days right now. Just because the rest of you can seemingly post any time of day, doesnt mean we all have that kind of time.
Also, under the things I really dont like about this game so far:
1) The amount of metagaming going on, especially towards people that havent played enough games to GET a meta on them.
2) Seppel. Although, I knew I wasnt going to like Seppel from reading a couple previous games. I just dont like the playstyle all that much. Within 100 posts, Seppel has wanted to see a lynch on the following people: Me, Gamerz, Nom, iLord, Kraj, and has voted for Llama (even though he's in the leaning town category)
3) The really early wagon on Gamerz. This was not only unwarrented (even if he did vote himself), but it tore us out of the RVS before a lot of people had actually confirmed. Considering I was called scum for "for trying to avoid having a random vote", how does it look when we have people that dont even have posts in the random phase?
FYI: I'll rarely be able to do much (if anything) on weekends, so I'll try to compensate for it during the rest of the week.
I'm still liking Seppel. Also liking ZDS.
Feeling a little better about Gamerz the more he posts, but still a little concerned about his somewhat contradictory after-the-fact self-analysis about the self vote incident. The vote isn't that big a deal, but he can't seem to get his story straight on why he did it, or what he was thinking at the time. He's said that he figured they were going for reactions. But if he saw that from the start, why "call them out" (as I think iLord already pointed out)? I don't think this is worth pursuing at the moment though. He has remained pretty calm throughout the pressure, and I can understand getting flustered by early pressure, especially if you haven't experienced that before.
iLord's quick reversal on Gamerz doesn't especially bother me. His reasons for changing his mind seem genuine and justifiable.
Kraj's tone irks me though. It's been a while since I played, but I don't remember him ever being so goofy and jovial when I've played with him in the past. And the way he's doing it seems suspicious. For instance, the way he jokingly sets up a binary between iLord and Nom_Anor, like he just wants to put that idea out there with a feasible safety valve ("Joke!") just in case it comes back to bite him. It seems like he's trying to hard to appear harmless and nice. He also seems to have picked out Nom_Anor for picking-on, but his banter-like response to his questions gives me the feel that he doesn't really care, he just wants to be doing something rather than nothing.
Vote Kraj
I agree with ZDS's that jskura's above post seems strangely hostile. Mostly toward Seppel, but also toward the game moving out of random voting stage. What's the deal, jskura? Why the rant at Seppel for a passing accusation of your guilt? Why is the end of the random phase such a bother to you? Because someone called you scum for not participating in it enough? You seem awfully concerned with your image.
Mystifyingly, people are agreeing with it and so now I have to actually respond to it instead of rightfully dismissing it as ridiculous garbage.
Annoying? Your opinion. Incorrect? Well:
First of all, opportunism isn't the only reason a scum will attack someone already under suspicion. Second of all, I don't really need to explain why I find something suspicious unless I'm gonna call you scum over it. Third of all, since I already explained that I felt your push and reversal on Gamerz was scummy, it is already implied that easing into another bandwagon without fully committing to it is in turn scummy. But since you pushed the issue, I'll break it down:
1. First you pushed very strongly on Gamerz and called him scum over evidence that was, at best, flimsy. It's one thing to identify something you find suspicious and apply pressure over it; it's another to repeatedly rail against a player and explain how every single thing they say is scummy like you did when the initial evidence is weak.
2. Then you (to use your own words) took "a glance at Basic #7 and 9" to see if the behavior you found suspicious fit his playstyle, found that for the most part it did, and unvoted. This looks to me like a very weak reason for backing off of someone you were attacking so strongly.
3. A couple of other players had attacked Nom_Anor at this point. You initially disagreed with their attacks but then made a very mild attack of your own (his explanation in response to your question wasn't "cutting it"). I voted Nom, he responded, ZDS said his response was bad, and then you also said his response was bad. There are two scummy things about this. First, instead of voting or even just stating your suspicion outright, you agreed with ZDS. That's called barning and it's scummy because it's a way of supporting an argument while making it look like someone else is the one making it. Second, at the time you added your attack to Nom, the only other player who had anything resembling a wagon forming was you. Seppel voted you, I made a clear statement on the suspiciousness of your actions, and BigLlama had expressed suspicions of you. It is quite possible a scum you would be worried that if Nom's wagon stalled the focus would shift to you.
You were confident enough to vote him and repeatedly argue with him, as well as argue that all his responses were scummy when I found them to be rather reasonable.
Because it's pretty darn rare for everything someone says to be scummy - even when they're scum. When you've got a whole stack of reasons why someone is scum 40 posts into the game, those reasons aren't all that great but you're treating them like they are, it smacks of insincerity. I looks a lot like pressuring a new player and hoping he implodes.
See above.
No, but it wouldn't hurt
What a shock. Sadly OMGUS isn't a very reliable tell, especially for you, but c'mon. Blatant OMGUS is blatant. Stop to think that maybe you're having an emotional reaction here?
OK, so you just admitted my reasoning was valid but are calling me scum because you think my argument against you is stronger than my argument against Nom. Lemme ask you something: If I'm scum and you're town, and the strongest argument I have against someone is you, why wouldn't I just attack you? If I wanted to get on Nom's wagon, why bother commenting about you at all?
First of all, your first sentence does not fit with the rest of the paragraph. The paragraph reiterates my reasoning as to why Nom Anor is the scummier looking one, but in the first sentence you say I "realize that my initial analysis of you weighs for more scummily than Nom_Anor's weak attack". Your explanation proves the opposite of what you are claiming.
Secondly, I didn't call you scum, I said you looked scummy. That indicates you could either be filling the role of the loud/scummy townie, or you could just plain be scum. I don't have enough information yet to make a confident decision.
Thirdly, it absolutely makes sense to call you scummy in this scenario. If there is no one playing the part of "scummy-looking townie" then there is no basis for suspecting anyone as the "quiet scum". There is little basis for me suspecting Nom Anor in this situation unless I find you scummy. You could be simply the loud townie rather than the scummy townie and still fit the pattern (indeed, I'd pretty much guarantee there are townies being loud right now and scum being quiet observers, fulfilling the pattern), but in this situation a key part of what caught my eye about Nom is that he barned your scummy argument. If I didn't find your argument scummy, I wouldn't be suspicious of Nom for agreeing with it (though he did still barn you, which is a little suspicious regardless).
I have a question for you: you have demonstrated here that you really do not understand the logic I was using at all. When you earlier said my reasoning in thinking Nom is scummy was valid, what did you think my reasoning was?
I think this has been covered.
The problem with this assessment is that the equations are missing the actual logic operator: IF. IF A=B, and B=C, then A=C. I still need to decide whether I believe A=B. Further, it's pretty rare to have the certainty of = in this game.
Or to de-obfuscate the point, my suspicion of Nom makes the most sense with you being town, but it's hardly enough to conclude you're town.
Well duh. See above.
I never said that I thought you were "trying too hard to look town". I said you were pushing a case harder than you had a basis for. That's not trying too hard to look town, that's trying too hard to get someone lynched.
I didn't bother to look because it is irrelevant, which I thought was pretty clear about. I don't really feel the need to argue about what Nom's original opinion on your case was when his original opinion on your case has nothing to do with my point. Especially when even if he's telling the truth it makes him look worse to me.
Metafail. I'm never lazy.
goddamn that was long...
Preview: DragonDart, take a look at the start of Janus mafia. I was far more goofy and jovial there. I'm trying to actually have fun playing this game and not take it so seriously.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
Other than his flip-flopping, I have no problems with iLord. He's a bit too mailable, but I don't think he's scum. I don't have as strong a town read as on Kraj and Seppel, but he's more on the leaning town side than leaning scum side for me.
Who I still think is scum is Gamerz. Note his latest model:
Good way to wait for other people to give their opinions by avoiding saying anything definite about Kraj, iLord, and me.
Psst, your scumminess is showing:
I love that word. I could back that up with more, but they're ongoing games. Those posts have the same choice of words as well.
That was the list of the moment, and I mixed up a few in the don't know and likely town piles.
I don't understand this question. This section of your post goes nowhere.
Aww, afraid of having to change your playstyle?
So?
A little overprotective of Gamerz for no reason. Concern about image. Unjustified anger.
Unvote, vote Jskura
Found them:
1&2. Have I not explained this like 8 times. I did not agree with iLord. Then Gamerz made his scummy defensive post and I decided he was scummy. Note iLord does not have a wholly compelling post but does give a good point, which combined with Gamerz's post makes me vote for him.
And sorry about the name mixup.
3. No, it isn't scummy to make a laundry list of attacks on page 2. It's odd, sure, but I would expect scum to be somewhat more reserved than that. I find seriously replying to each and every one of the points to be far more scummy.
4. Both. It's far too apologetic and too deeply thought about.
I was suspicious of iLord because his push on gamerz felt insincere, for the reasons I've already explained.
I was suspicious of Nom Anor because he barned iLord's push while I was so suspicious of it, he did it in a way that kept focus on iLord as the primary pusher, he did so immediately after voting iLord for apparently making a scummy push on gamerz, and the reason he gave for doing so was nonsense (defensiveness).
Figure that into my observation that scum love to quietly let loud townies lynch each other, and I felt much more suspicious of Nom than iLord.
That would be a big reason why I'm not calling iLord scum.
Actually:
That would be agreeing. Even if you simply meant you agree that gamerz is scummy, the point isn't whether you agreed with the content of iLord's case the point is that you presented your suspicion as agreement with iLord. That's barning.
Interestingly, replying to each and every one of the points is precisely what I just did with iLord - perhaps even to a fault - and yet you said you liked my response. Why was I genuine while gamerz was defensive?
To me you've just described a newer player trying not to screw up rather than someone who overreacted to being attacked, which is what defensive means.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
Kraj (2) - iLord, DD
Gamerz (1) - Nom_Amor
WoD (1) - ZDS
Seppel (1) - Biglllllama
Nom (1) - Kraj
Jskura (1) - Seppel
Not Voting: Bman, Gamerz, Zebi, Wod, Jskura
Random Mafia 2 Town MVP
'08 MTGS Fantasy Football Overall Champion
Best Non-SK Neutral Performance (Individual)
I don't see how getting us out of the RVS is scummy.
It is foolish for even mediocre scum to push attacks that they don't believe is valid. Scum that start wagons typically find some type of point that they feel is legit and push their attack there. I don't know about dC's case specifically but I doubt that he didn't believe his argument was valid, at least at the onset of his attack.
Annoying in that it fools people.
I assume opportunism is what you're accusing me over here. The standard progression that I sort of fastforwarded through here is:
Kraj: You're dipping your toe on the bandwagon.
iLord: So I'm not allowed to attack other people under attack?
Kraj: No, it's just the way you attacked him was scummy.
There's no basis in saying that me attacking Nom_Anor is scummy without explaining how I'm attacking him is scummy, as obviously the scenario is not sufficient. Are you saying that as a townie, I should avoid stating my suspicion of another player (That is under suspicion) unless I feel I can fully commit?
This argument itself is incredibly "flimsy." What is the difference between applying pressure and calling scum? You have make who you're attacking feel like you think they're scum to place pressure. A light accusation is almost completely pointless in this regard.
In this case, the points were even all valid, though obviously of varying strengths.
Again, this type of argument is not valid unless you can explain why. Am I to avoid changing my mind in such a situation because it's scummy?
"This looks to me" is suspiciously softer than your first point, making it obvious your belief on the objectivity of this point.
I disagree that barning is always scummy. In fact, I've found that more often scum try to take someone else's point and pretend for it to be their own. That, and I'm completely at lost as to why I would want to pretend that my attack wasn't my point - there was very little indication that doing so would be in anyway favorable to scumMe.
The second is a valid motive. You need to demonstrate how I indicated that I had such a motive, rather than just give a possible explanation.
You do not have to be confident that someone was scum to vote him and repeatedly argue with him. It doesn't matter that you found his responses to reasonable - that's completely unrelated to this point.
I still don't get what's wrong with this, other than you apparently view it as insecure (An argument that holds no weight whatsoever). Do we not hope that a new player implodes under pressure - that's why we apply pressure in the first place.
Actually it very well could. I much rather have a player like Seppel pointing at everything than one that doesn't say anything at all until they're sure, which could very well never happen.
Why is OMGUS not a reliable tell for me, specifically?
I love how you're trying to pass off my case as an emotional reaction, while ironically trying not to accuse me back (Despite how scummy you apparently view me) because you yourself are afraid of being accused of OMGUS.
I'll admit that I'm not sure why your attacking Nom over me but a variety of reasons would suffice, including ones that you've already attempted to use against me. Maybe you do not want responsibility for my mislynch. Maybe you want to distance from scumNom. Maybe you feel that the town's more sympathetic to a Nom lynch. I don't know what you're thinking.
I'm not understanding quite what your saying here, but I think it's because you misinterpreted the intent of my paragraph by reading only half of it.
No - I couldn't fill the role of scum because you've already attributed that to Nom in your reasoning.
The point here is that regardless which role you have me filling, it can't be the scum one that Nom's filling. We apparently have different definitions here, but avoiding use of the word "scummy," it makes no sense for you to believe I am scum in this scenario.
You think barning is scummy (Which quite realistically, is up to argument whether or not Nom_Anor did so) and you believe that he does not actually view Gamerz post as defensive.
No, I don't believe it has been covered. What is the point of mentioning the example if you are going to invalidate it by mentioning that I don't follow this pattern?
Regardless of the level of certainty, "IF A=B and B=C," "but I think" is still not something you say after correlating information. Key word here is not "I think," but "but," which typically implies contrast.
To similarly clear this up, you introduce an argument about why Nom is more likely to be scum than me. You would hardly add "But I think" before you conclusion stating that you believe Nom is more likely to be scum than me.
You do not see what's scummy about having your foot on both wagons? I can see a lot of benefit for the scum to have such a motive.
I'll admit that I misinterpreted you here then, but your attack is still invalid. We've covered this above, but I will not that I completely disbelieve that you actually believed that I wanted Gamerz lynched at that point.
Part of the point here was that you were too lazy to read all two of your target's posts before attacking. The other part is invalidated, as I misinterpreted the nature of your suspicion of me.
Lazy is perhaps too harsh. More accurately, I believe that townKraj would've actually taken the time to read both of Nom_Anor's posts before attacking him, although I will agree that since his reasoning is not the same as yours (As I had initially perceived it to be) that this point really isn't significant.
Contrary to DD, I don't believe that Kraj is any less serious that he normally is here.
"Honestly" is a weak tell at best, as some people like me use it as both town and scum (DYH specifically mentioned Points Mafia for me when he was trying to help me defend against similar accusations in Inheritance).
In this case, however, it's not even valid. It has to be in a position where it indicates that the player is giving his true opinion (Theoretically in contrast to his standard falsified opinions).
Agree about the anger, but I don't see why that's indicative of scum, as I could see both town and scum mindsets for being mad. Don't see the overprotectiveness or concern about image. Disagree that he's scummy.
-----------------------------
ZDS and Kraj both have good point against Nom_Anor, like the discrepancy between his view of Gamerz and Kraj's posts, as well as his vote on me not working with his stated opinion. Not sure about his relationship to Kraj though, and I can't tell whether or not they're on the same side.
My Custom Set: Solescurio
What about Kraj scum but N_A town?
My Custom Set: Solescurio
In regards to my "angry" post. It wasnt meant to come off angry, but I can definitely see how it could. I'm just not a fan of Seppel's playstyle (nice to see it's gone full circle and it's back on me again though :rolleyes:). There was a lot of random Seppel voting that was going on, and I can see how it might prove to be useful later in the game, so I guess it could always be taken as a good thing.
I'm definitely torn on the iLord/Kraj thing going on right now.
You don't believe my last sentence, I guess, eh?
I wanted Seppel's opinion because his way of going back and forth on who he thinks is scum seems so odd to me. Kraj posts, Seppel immediately says he's town...with no explanation. He then mentions not long after that either Nom or iLord are scum. iLord then posts his reasons for Kraj's scumminess, and Seppel immediately votes Kraj. I posted so that I could get a clearer understanding of Seppel's reasoning for why he was doing that.
His response to me is still...well, does Seppel usually act this way? The way he mentions how iLord is 'winning' in towniness tells me that he's not taking things that seriously yet. Especially combined with what I was just previously saying.
Now, regarding Kraj and iLord (and Nom):
First off, these long posts are giving me a headache. Not that I have a problem with them, per se, because, well, reading is something that's obviously required for this game, but geeeez, the contrast between this and the newb games is definitely noticeable.
Kraj's first post contrasts greatly with his later longer ones...it seems like he wasn't prepared to have to defend himself.
Regarding it's content, I don't think that iLord's attack on me was unreasonable at all. And I certainly don't agree with him in that iLord is 'very scummy' (and I like iLord's point that Kraj calls iLord's actions 'very scummy' yet votes for Nom...does that make Nom 'very very scummy'?). iLord's case on Kraj has, in my opinion, some merit to it - like the point I just mentioned. I also agree with his point about Kraj's 'but I think'
And reading things over (and over (and over))), Kraj claims that he isn't calling iLord scummy at all, and his first long post, he seems to be taking careful steps not to infer at all that iLord is, in fact, scum. Yet, his post just before that, he calls out iLord for joining in on Nom's bandwagon...seeming to take glee in wondering which of the 2 of them will get lynched first. How is this not inferring that iLord is scum and not just 'scummy'?
Regarding Nom, I'm on the fence, but leaning scum. I don't like that he's basically been going after me for just for being defensive, but that's more just because it annoys me as opposed to because I think it's scummy. Kraj's reasons for voting him give me pause though, and I didn't like how weakly he defended bman. He also early on mentions that he's getting a 'town read' on Seppel, but is not sure on him yet; then later mentions that he's got a 'strong read' when comparing him to iLord.
Fencesitting.
I'm going to look over the Kraj v Me arguments again.
Unvote, Vote: Nom_Anor
My Custom Set: Solescurio