Eventful couple of days. I don't think an avatar massclaim will accomplish anything significant for the town, but (while unlikely) could help the scum.
Ordinarily, those types of claims should be used to further discussion when it's stagnated IMO, and we weren't in that situation. So I find the timing of it unusual.
+Scum. I don't see the rest of this post as really contributing, and it erks me in a couple of places (vague language+reasoning on ib, not providing a reason for thinking Tom's consistent while reading as coaching, some Tan mudslinging).
@Tom: Why the vote for GM? And why ARE you being so cryptic? What do you aim to accomplish?
Like, this play is either making me feel like a fool for not reading you correctly in OFWGKTA, or reflecting poorly on your town play. You're functioning as a distraction.
---
@Ria: Do you have someone in mind when you say "guys with... dicking around..?"
Also, what was your reasoning for proposing the massclaim?
we'll have a better idea of whether a mass nameclaim will help the town or mafia more after Day 1 and Night 1 have passed.
Why?
Based on what way the D1 lynch flips and what happens N1. And based on how much "good," non-stagnated discussion we're having D2, like g_d said last post.
His PBPA was a joke, he made no effort to look if there was a player overlap related to my "don't self-lynch" post even while deriding the comment, then he tried to blackmail me with an unreasonable demand, treating me like I'm ignoring the thread or otherwise not participating, when we're all of 150 posts into a game where a third of the players have less posts than the host.
His PBPA was a joke, he made no effort to look if there was a player overlap related to my "don't self-lynch" post even while deriding the comment, then he tried to blackmail me with an unreasonable demand, treating me like I'm ignoring the thread or otherwise not participating, when we're all of 150 posts into a game where a third of the players have less posts than the host.
How do those things make you feel bossed?
Have you ever had an emotion take you over that others thought was off?
@Tom: Please answer my question I asked you (Dan's post has the question I asked.)
As for Avatar claim: No way we should even be considering it ATM. While I can see some value in knowing who is unlocked, at the same time, the value of that knowledge does not outweigh the value it gives to scum in knowing what players are active.
- The direction of play I'm trying in this game comes mostly from Seppel. The things he said after KOTH Mafia was abandoned made a lot of sense to me, so I'm tinkering with that sort of style.
- I've been thinking it's beneficial to vote first explain later. I could explain right away, but I like to get the extra posts of people asking questions or making comments. It gives more content to analyze, and it can also show who is concerned with the vote and just how concerned they are. I explain eventually anyway, so I don't see a problem with this.
------
Why I'm voting for GM is because he is scum. I haven't liked his past posts, specifically his attack on Zenjo, but this recent one is just off-the-charts bad.
About infectiousbaloth:
Agree that his claim to have tunnel vision during RVS was weird. Do not think it's enough to vote him yet, but he's one of my top suspect.
Textbook definition of fence-sitting.
This looks more to me like another case of ria trying to appear town without doing any scumhunting.
More fence-sitting. Saying "another case" is especially odd because GM never commented on rianalnn until this point.
He's just trying to arouse more suspicion on other people without committing himself.
About arbitraryarmor:
Terribly explained vote and post edit were bad, but I get this is pretty much his first game. Put some more thought into your vote and explain why you think Tom "has no spine," I actually think he's pretty consistent.
AA has two posts in this game, both of which stink. So yeah, I guess he is consistent. GM, what the hell is the point of this part of your post?
"I actually think he's pretty consistent" also seems like a compliment. Is armor your scum buddy?
About mass-claiming avatars:
I don't really know what avatars would look scummy enough that someone would want to false claim an avatar name, so I guess this is ok, but my role is crazy enough that I don't think knowing people's avatars would really give us much information.
Worst part is right here. Mind set = way off.
In the first part, colored orange, GM says that he is ok with the mass claim because he doesn't know what avatars would look so scummy that someone would want to false-claim. Assuming the scum are the players with the scummiest avatars, he just expressed concern for them having to false-claim.
Town would WANT the scum to be forced to false-claim. The main purpose of most mass claims is to get the scum to lie. GM, on the other hand, likes the idea because false-claiming wouldn't be involved.
In the second part, colored green, GM pretty much states that a mass claim wouldn't result in much information, because his role is so crazy (and is thus probably not too closely related to his avatar). The problem with this? Mass claims are NOT to gain role information. They are to gain alignment information (or in some cases, game mechanic information). The only people that would be concerned with role information at this point would be the mafia.
I also don't like him carelessly throwing out the idea that he has a crazy role. Town would be concerned to do this because then the mafia is likely to kill them during the night.
@Tom: OK you bring up GM's fencesitting as a reason to vote him. How do you feel about the people he is fencesitting on though?
RE GM: He does point out my signup thread as me basically being a cautious player. This is true, but my reasoning for voting him is not just him pointing out Zenjo as he mentions. I have also called him out on fencesitting here in Post 47. So my case is more than just that and I am indeed confident in my read of him.
@ZDS: I know there was a question you asked me, but for the life of me can't find it ATM. Would you please re-ask it or otherwise point me in the right direction?
That, or I'm town and automatically assuming he's scum, so I still can't beat him.
Well which one is it?
I'm confused as to why you are seriously asking him to answer this. What response is he supposed to give? He can get serious and say that he was just RVS-ing and complimenting ZDS....or continue RVS-ing.
Legitimately, how do you think I could have a read on ZDS off of 4 posts in RVS?
Trolling for an implosion?
Killing my RVS.
Again, he responds with more 'I like my RVS' stuff.
He even implies that he is town and that he doesn't know ZDS's alignment. (I would consider that a legitimate answer)
That, or I'm town and automatically assuming he's scum, so I still can't beat him.
Now you are saying that you 'legitimate question' wasn't really a legitimate question at all? But an accusation? Why didn't you just accuse him in the first place? Why troll him like that?
Unvote
I played with Tom in the last two mod mafia games and he got dead (day vigged, then lynched) Day 1 both times for playing like scum, even though he turned up town. Hopefully he has learned enough not to get mislynched if he is town this time. Chasing ganderin_dan out of RVS does look more to me like fake scumhunting than real scumhunting at the moment.
IGMEOY. The "last two mod mafia games" could be a townie reason for this quote. But, "Hopefully he has learned" sounds like coaching to me.
I'm seeing it as a compliment, yes, but I don't get the "we can't beat him" part.
How can you see the compliment, yet not get the "we can't beat him" part? Isn't that part the actual compliment in all this? You can't have it both ways ya know.
Yes, that is the compliment. It implies that ZDS is a good player. It's pretty obvious.
But I don't understand the actual "we can't beat him" text. The word "we" must mean something. But who is "we" referring to? All of the non-ZDS players in this game? That wouldn't make any sense.
Let's look at ganderin_dan as a townie for one sec. Here is how the compliment would have to go so that Tom wouldn't have to troll him like he did...
(Vote ZDS since all the townies can't beat him if he is scum and all the scum can't beat him if he is town.)
From the get-go I asked you a relatively simple question, just for clarification, which you failed to non-sarcastically answer until this very post I'm quoting you on.
Due to your constant sarcastic answers, it took several questions to get the real answer out of you. I don't see how this is me "continuing to push a wagon". That was me trying to get an answer.
I also find it quite ironic that you are accusing me of not helping to progress the game in a positive manner.
So you state here that he has been giving sarcastic answers. But the question asked at the beginning is changed to include one of these sarcastic answers. And you still are claiming that your questions were legitimate?
1) ria is town that is frustrated from the last game he played and carries it over to this game
2) ria is scum and is concerned about appearing town
I feel like #2 is more likely.
*I would put a third option that says "ria is town that is legitimately concerned that a townie will commit suicide" but I don't consider that reason plausible.
.
Ummm. If ria saw 2 townies go suicide in his last game, then why is option 3 impossible?
Your explanation that you took it as a joke is totally plausible and I'm willing to buy it, especially since ZDS, who is much more experienced than I, was willing to accept it.
This sounds like you are trying to buddy up to me.
Yeah. ib, what reason do you have to trust anything ZDS is putting out here?
I suppose I don't. But ZDS isn't the only one who thinks that me finding g_d dodgy is scummy. (This whole g_d thing reminds me of Checks and Balances re: Ahlyis, FWIW. Where I voted Ahlyis and got ran up for it.) If people think G_d was joking, and I just missed it because I got excited and thought we'd caught scum, then I'm probably just wrong. /shrug.
Yes, IB, I have had tunnel vision. But not in RVS. And it didn't take such a small amount of effort to have my mind changed.
Tom should answer the direct question posed to him by Tan. And the post is back in its' original form.
Tunnel vision is ZDS' term. Not mine. I wasn't tunneling on you, ignoring all others, I had just said "Well, Dan is scum". Decided to vote you, and read everything you had written as if it came from a scum mindset. You still could be scum, but your dodginess isn't scummy.
Semantics. The question is why did you do that, and how were you able to "decide [Dan] was scum rather than reading [him] with an open mind" when we were barely out of RVS.
I thought Tom was right about Dan, and dropped a vote. Also, Mafia is a game of semantics; they're important.
Can you explain your vote and your FoSes with more words and less quotes?
With the whole thing between ganderin dan and Tom...
Ganderin dan's actions I can see from either perspective, and I don't see how one would be more likely.
I just can't see Tom's actions from a townie perspective.
Like, he claims he has been asking a simple question expecting a simple answer.
And he also claims that until the end ganderin dan has been giving sarcastic answers. But the problem is, half of those "legitimate questions" were assuming those sarcastic answers were true, which turned them into accusations instead of questions.
I'm leaning town on G-D. I changed my mind; get over it.
Tom's looking worse and worse with each post.
Riann puts me on edge, but I'm not used to his playstyle at all, he has done nothing scummy.
Gerrard's Mom reads as off to me as well, but it could just be that I'm unaccustomed to his (her?) playstyle.
I'm leaning scum on Void based on meta alone; he's asking a lot of questions but appears to be playing cautiously. (See: Detryptichos)
Tom is using the weakest possible excuse to sling mud at Dan. Did he honestly think Dan was seriously hinting at inside knowledge? Why would Dan do that?
Were you expecting me to answer this when you originally asked it?
Anyway, in answer to your question: no, I didn't think Dan was hinting at inside knowledge. I thought I was either misunderstanding what he was saying or he is scum that had slipped.
I can see a Town Tom misunderstanding once, but I can't see him misunderstanding for that long. Even after all those responses from Dan. If he is town, then I say OMGUS.
Especially since Tom kept pushing after this perfectly legitimate answer.
How do you guys deal with, uh, meta reverse tunnel vision? Not sure what to call it, but the more people press on Tom for doing ridiculous things and looking like scum, the more this looks exactly like the last two games I played with him. Yes, I understand that maybe this time he is scum, and that I haven't really contributed anything except constantly talking about Tom, but I am really getting deja vu here. I am convinced that Tom is going to end up getting lynched and flipping town again.
1) ria is town that is frustrated from the last game he played and carries it over to this game
2) ria is scum and is concerned about appearing town
I feel like #2 is more likely.
*I would put a third option that says "ria is town that is legitimately concerned that a townie will commit suicide" but I don't consider that reason plausible.
.
Ummm. If ria saw 2 townies go suicide in his last game, then why is option 3 impossible?
I didn't say it wasn't possible. I considered it not plausible. Meaning extremely unlikely. And I considered it unlikely because most games I've seen do not have townies committing suicide. I don't believe ria was actually concerned that a townie would commit suicide that game just because a couple did in his last game.
I'm pretty sure if you re-read GM's quote. He was saying you were pretty consistant, not ria.
You are probably right. I misinterpreted that part.
- The direction of play I'm trying in this game comes mostly from Seppel. The things he said after KOTH Mafia was abandoned made a lot of sense to me, so I'm tinkering with that sort of style.
With that in mind... you do look like an awful caricature of him. Without the charisma, the sense of humour, or the tangible skills. I don't mean to offend you, but mimicking other players does not work, especially not players like Seppel whose in-game behaviour are only the visible part of the iceberg.
That's fair. Like I said, I'm toying around with some styles of play. I don't have many games under my belt and I do not consider myself close to a good mafia player, so I'm practicing different things to learn more.
About mass-claiming avatars:
I don't really know what avatars would look scummy enough that someone would want to false claim an avatar name, so I guess this is ok, but my role is crazy enough that I don't think knowing people's avatars would really give us much information.
Worst part is right here. Mind set = way off.
In the first part, colored orange, GM says that he is ok with the mass claim because he doesn't know what avatars would look so scummy that someone would want to false-claim. Assuming the scum are the players with the scummiest avatars, he just expressed concern for them having to false-claim.
Town would WANT the scum to be forced to false-claim. The main purpose of most mass claims is to get the scum to lie. GM, on the other hand, likes the idea because false-claiming wouldn't be involved.
In the second part, colored green, GM pretty much states that a mass claim wouldn't result in much information, because his role is so crazy (and is thus probably not too closely related to his avatar). The problem with this? Mass claims are NOT to gain role information. They are to gain alignment information (or in some cases, game mechanic information). The only people that would be concerned with role information at this point would be the mafia.
I also don't like him carelessly throwing out the idea that he has a crazy role. Town would be concerned to do this because then the mafia is likely to kill them during the night.
About mass-claiming avatars:
I don't really know what avatars would look scummy enough that someone would want to false claim an avatar name, so I guess this is ok, but my role is crazy enough that I don't think knowing people's avatars would really give us much information.
Worst part is right here. Mind set = way off.
In the first part, colored orange, GM says that he is ok with the mass claim because he doesn't know what avatars would look so scummy that someone would want to false-claim. Assuming the scum are the players with the scummiest avatars, he just expressed concern for them having to false-claim.
Town would WANT the scum to be forced to false-claim. The main purpose of most mass claims is to get the scum to lie. GM, on the other hand, likes the idea because false-claiming wouldn't be involved.
In the second part, colored green, GM pretty much states that a mass claim wouldn't result in much information, because his role is so crazy (and is thus probably not too closely related to his avatar). The problem with this? Mass claims are NOT to gain role information. They are to gain alignment information (or in some cases, game mechanic information). The only people that would be concerned with role information at this point would be the mafia.
I also don't like him carelessly throwing out the idea that he has a crazy role. Town would be concerned to do this because then the mafia is likely to kill them during the night.
My point is that an avatar claim by its nature gives us no alignment information. There are no obviously "good" and "bad" avatars, unlike, say, the Star Fox theme of the ongoing Mod Mafia. Thus there is no need to fake claim another avatar.
With no alignment information to be gained, I assumed people would want to guess about abilities or something. Contrary to what you assume, my role is actually pretty closely tied to my avatar, but the role itself is unlike anything I have ever seen before, and that's why I'm assuming it will be hard to gain any information out of a mass claim.
Also, "I guess it is ok, but I don't see the point" was not intended to be a vote in favor. To clarify, I do not want to mass claim today.
In any case, I think your point about mass claiming being a bad idea is good, I just don't think you are pointing it the right way. I will.
My point is that an avatar claim by its nature gives us no alignment information. There are no obviously "good" and "bad" avatars, unlike, say, the Star Fox theme of the ongoing Mod Mafia. Thus there is no need to fake claim another avatar.
Yeah. You made this idea of yours quite clear. The problem I have with it is then you went on to say "so I guess this is ok". That implies that since there is no need to fake-claim another avatar, you think the proposal is ok. Scum are the only ones who would think a mass claim is ok because no fake-claims would be involved.
With no alignment information to be gained, I assumed people would want to guess about abilities or something.
Then your mind-set is scummy.
I'm also not so sure that "no alignment information can be gained". Why are you?
Also, "I guess it is ok, but I don't see the point" was not intended to be a vote in favor. To clarify, I do not want to mass claim today.
"I guess this is ok" implies that you are ok with it.
Now you are saying that you do not want a mass claim.
When and why did you change your mind?
I think your point about mass claiming being a bad idea is good
@Ria: Do you have someone in mind when you say "guys with... dicking around..?"
Also, what was your reasoning for proposing the massclaim?
Answer, please?
I have nothing really relevant to say re: Zenjo's wall of quotes. Try to make them easier on the eyes.
AA's active lurking (in the fashion of noob scum, at that) bothers me, but not enough to want to unvote IB.
The whole Tom copying Seppel thing actually fits upon rereading and comparing to Seppel's notes at the end of KotH. If anything, this unnerves me slightly that he will be bucking he meta (but only for our reads, not as a personal/playstyle thing).
I was thinking of a mass nameclaim...for Day 2. Why Day 1?
Because it was explicitly an easy topic of discussion to draw in the low-posters/non-participants. ZDS' solid answer kind of derailed it coming in early, but his response is in the general area my thoughts are – I am not for it, since I don't think it gives the town anything it won't get by due process, & hands the mafia info they're going to be able to work with more effectively, if there is anything to it.
About mass-claiming avatars:
I don't really know what avatars would look scummy enough that someone would want to false claim an avatar name, so I guess this is ok, but my role is crazy enough that I don't think knowing people's avatars would really give us much information. This looks more to me like another case of ria trying to appear town without doing any scumhunting.
This is a great post. Mom says he doesn't know that any of Meg's av could inherently be considered scummy, which should lead him to the thought that there is therefor little obvious benefit for the town, but instead he's thinking the scum won't need to play around it. . . why is he thinking from scum perspective? & how is the town not being able to cakewalk scum from a mass claim "ok"? Huh? Then he starts leaking role information, why? He rounds it off not by stating his position one way or another, but by trying to attribute a position to me. & if this is actually another instance of me trying to appear town, where is the vote? It doesn't come until Tom calls Mom out for how terrible this post is.
My point is that an avatar claim by its nature gives us no alignment information. There are no obviously "good" and "bad" avatars, unlike, say, the Star Fox theme of the ongoing Mod Mafia. Thus there is no need to fake claim another avatar.
With no alignment information to be gained, I assumed people would want to guess about abilities or something. Contrary to what you assume, my role is actually pretty closely tied to my avatar, but the role itself is unlike anything I have ever seen before, and that's why I'm assuming it will be hard to gain any information out of a mass claim.
Also, "I guess it is ok, but I don't see the point" was not intended to be a vote in favor. To clarify, I do not want to mass claim today.
In any case, I think your point about mass claiming being a bad idea is good, I just don't think you are pointing it the right way. I will.
Vote rianalnn
He elaborates on not being able to glean alignment, but again fails to make the cognitive leap to 'what is the point of the claim then?' & instead seems to think that the idea is to start speculating role info – I don't understand that connection at all, & it seems to me like a suspicious next step. & then again leaking role info??
Next he tries to spin what he said; "so I guess this is ok" becomes "I guess it is ok, but I don't see the point" – & it still doesn't explain how a mass claim being no bother to scum = ok. Finally he votes me, presumably for being in support of a mass claim (which I never was).
Re: Avatar claim: Claiming avatars will let us all know who powers up each Day, which I suppose is the point, since it can help analysis to an extent*. On the other hand, it also lets us all know who powers up each Day. "All of us" includes the mafia. I don't think it's a good idea to let them keep track of who is at full power and who isn't, and besides I don't see what benefits an avatar claim can bring us that simply keeping a record of Meg's own avatars (to compare with claims later on) can't.
I am therefore firmly opposed to a mass avatar claim.
*if this wasn't the point, then please explain Rianalnn.
The point was to see who had their thinking caps on; provide an easy topic to respond to with no clear benefit to the town.
Because Megiddo's avatar won't matter until Day 2. And, if anything, we'll have a better idea of whether a mass nameclaim will help the town or mafia more after Day 1 and Night 1 have passed. Like ZDS pointed out there's an inherent risk in the claim even if it can help the town better analyze and manage the game, so I'm against even considering it on Day 1 when that benefit doesn't even really exist now.
This strikes me as a weak response; how does Meg's avatar "mattering" relate to if the claim helps or hurts the town? It seems like a soft idea & it isn't fleshed out; instead TMCT moves to the next idea, that we'll have more info to evaluate the outlook of the mass nameclaim, although he sets it out as if it's a sure thing, & it's not – the info revealed over the night may be useless in determining the value of a mass nameclaim. Then he refers to ZDS' post, but without connecting the dots of why [if there is a benefit to nameclaim]/[benefit does not exist today]. Lazy analysis isn't necessarily scummy, but this is a better look in on TMCT's thought process than we've seen so far.
Eventful couple of days. I don't think an avatar massclaim will accomplish anything significant for the town, but (while unlikely) could help the scum.
Ordinarily, those types of claims should be used to further discussion when it's stagnated IMO, and we weren't in that situation. So I find the timing of it unusual.
@Ria: Do you have someone in mind when you say "guys with... dicking around..?"
Also, what was your reasoning for proposing the massclaim?
*I* felt stagnated. It felt like the same people were dominating the thread, & I wasn't gleaning much from my interaction from Tom aside from reinforcing the weak overeager town feel I was getting. As I've said, I hoped to draw some posts from the less-heard corners with a soft pitch over the plate.
I wasn't thinking of anyone in particular when referring back the RVS fallout, just speaking of the general impression it has for me.
At this point I would like to review Mom's games, but effectively that guy has a hard yellow scum read for me & you can consider me on that wagon. Meanwhile I would like to see some pressure on arbitraryarmor to participate today, & not get a free pass into Day 2 as a cypher.
How do you guys deal with, uh, meta reverse tunnel vision? Not sure what to call it, but the more people press on Tom for doing ridiculous things and looking like scum, the more this looks exactly like the last two games I played with him. Yes, I understand that maybe this time he is scum, and that I haven't really contributed anything except constantly talking about Tom, but I am really getting deja vu here. I am convinced that Tom is going to end up getting lynched and flipping town again.
vote Gerrard's Mom
You sound very, very sure that Tom is town. Why?
Assuming the scum are the players with the scummiest avatars
My perspective was that the mass claim was not so bad because it would not lead to bad cases based on flavor gaming, but apparently that isn't the case. As ria noted, I wasn't really supporting it in my original statement, I just didn't see that it would do much harm or much good. I saw that there really isn't a point, so I clarified my position in my last post. Don't try to cast me as having taken a position I didn't take.
I'm confused about where Tom stands on the mass claim idea. You think it's a good idea because we are going to catch somebody with a scummy avatar?
"Who is up for a mass claim?" read as a direct proposal to mass claim and thus ria being in favor of claiming to me. He is now denying that and voting for someone who has provided next to no content. Lynching arbitraryarmor would give the town very little to go on. While I agree that he should be replaced, lynching lurkers does not really advance the town cause, so I'm keeping my vote on ria.
@ZDS: I dunno where you are getting the second question from, especially with the first question. I assume you mean I see a scenario where both are scum, or where just Tom is town, in which case, the second question makes more sense. So I will answer it like you made a typo here.
Yes, I just don't see GM's actions as town in motivation. My read on him is only stronger give some of the responses I have read from him.
My perspective was that the mass claim was not so bad because it would not lead to bad cases based on flavor gaming, but apparently that isn't the case. As ria noted, I wasn't really supporting it in my original statement, I just didn't see that it would do much harm or much good. I saw that there really isn't a point, so I clarified my position in my last post. Don't try to cast me as having taken a position I didn't take.
You said "i guess this is ok".
Now you are saying that you do not think it is ok.
You also seem to be saying that you never changed your mind.
It doesn't add up. What am I missing?
I'm confused about where Tom stands on the mass claim idea. You think it's a good idea because we are going to catch somebody with a scummy avatar?
I'm against a mass claim.
"Who is up for a mass claim?" read as a direct proposal to mass claim and thus ria being in favor of claiming to me. He is now denying that and voting for someone who has provided next to no content. Lynching arbitraryarmor would give the town very little to go on. While I agree that he should be replaced, lynching lurkers does not really advance the town cause, so I'm keeping my vote on ria.
Can you point to where ria said that he was an advocate of lynching arbitraryarmor? I see where ria said that he wanted to pressure arbitraryarmor into playing the game, but not where he wanted to lynch him.
Tom, re ria: a vote seems like pretty strong advocacy of lynching someone. You just commented on the fact that ria voted for arbitraryarmor...
Re: my wording, it wasn't great, but you are ignoring the "but" clause. The statement was far from outright approval of mass claiming. For what it's worth, your attempt at analysis is good, Tom, I understand that my wording mistake will probably cost me my life. I'm going to spend the rest of my time today looking for scum, and hopefully my efforts will be useful for you guys when I flip town.
I'm sorry, I've just been rather busy. I'm sure that you wouldn't know about that - you probably have your mafia underlings carrying out your business for you.
arbitraryarmor - you need to explain why you are voting for rianalnn. Blindly voting back somebody is called OMGUS (oh my god you suck) and is considered very bad play.
@rianalnn: Are you being sarcastic? I don't feel like we have gained anything from AA's posts.
@arbitraryarmor: What you are doing right now is not helpful. If you want to be helpful, read through the entire thread and then provide in-depth insight on who you think is scum and who you think is town (and your reasons for thinking it).
Also, if you feel like defending Gerrard's Mom, now is a great time to do so.
Ordinarily, those types of claims should be used to further discussion when it's stagnated IMO, and we weren't in that situation. So I find the timing of it unusual.
Has this been answered?
+Scum. I don't see the rest of this post as really contributing, and it erks me in a couple of places (vague language+reasoning on ib, not providing a reason for thinking Tom's consistent while reading as coaching, some Tan mudslinging).
@Tom: Why the vote for GM? And why ARE you being so cryptic? What do you aim to accomplish?
Like, this play is either making me feel like a fool for not reading you correctly in OFWGKTA, or reflecting poorly on your town play. You're functioning as a distraction.
---
@Ria: Do you have someone in mind when you say "guys with... dicking around..?"
Also, what was your reasoning for proposing the massclaim?
Based on what way the D1 lynch flips and what happens N1. And based on how much "good," non-stagnated discussion we're having D2, like g_d said last post.
A feeling is fair enough.
Have you ever had an emotion take you over that others thought was off?
Why?
As for Avatar claim: No way we should even be considering it ATM. While I can see some value in knowing who is unlocked, at the same time, the value of that knowledge does not outweigh the value it gives to scum in knowing what players are active.
Come join us in the MTGSalvation chat ||| My trade thread. ||| My Personal Modern Blog: The Fetchlands
- The direction of play I'm trying in this game comes mostly from Seppel. The things he said after KOTH Mafia was abandoned made a lot of sense to me, so I'm tinkering with that sort of style.
- I've been thinking it's beneficial to vote first explain later. I could explain right away, but I like to get the extra posts of people asking questions or making comments. It gives more content to analyze, and it can also show who is concerned with the vote and just how concerned they are. I explain eventually anyway, so I don't see a problem with this.
------
Why I'm voting for GM is because he is scum. I haven't liked his past posts, specifically his attack on Zenjo, but this recent one is just off-the-charts bad.
Textbook definition of fence-sitting.
More fence-sitting. Saying "another case" is especially odd because GM never commented on rianalnn until this point.
He's just trying to arouse more suspicion on other people without committing himself.
AA has two posts in this game, both of which stink. So yeah, I guess he is consistent. GM, what the hell is the point of this part of your post?
"I actually think he's pretty consistent" also seems like a compliment. Is armor your scum buddy?
Worst part is right here. Mind set = way off.
In the first part, colored orange, GM says that he is ok with the mass claim because he doesn't know what avatars would look so scummy that someone would want to false-claim. Assuming the scum are the players with the scummiest avatars, he just expressed concern for them having to false-claim.
Town would WANT the scum to be forced to false-claim. The main purpose of most mass claims is to get the scum to lie. GM, on the other hand, likes the idea because false-claiming wouldn't be involved.
In the second part, colored green, GM pretty much states that a mass claim wouldn't result in much information, because his role is so crazy (and is thus probably not too closely related to his avatar). The problem with this? Mass claims are NOT to gain role information. They are to gain alignment information (or in some cases, game mechanic information). The only people that would be concerned with role information at this point would be the mafia.
I also don't like him carelessly throwing out the idea that he has a crazy role. Town would be concerned to do this because then the mafia is likely to kill them during the night.
RE GM: He does point out my signup thread as me basically being a cautious player. This is true, but my reasoning for voting him is not just him pointing out Zenjo as he mentions. I have also called him out on fencesitting here in Post 47. So my case is more than just that and I am indeed confident in my read of him.
@ZDS: I know there was a question you asked me, but for the life of me can't find it ATM. Would you please re-ask it or otherwise point me in the right direction?
Come join us in the MTGSalvation chat ||| My trade thread. ||| My Personal Modern Blog: The Fetchlands
What does your second sentence (the question) have to do with your first sentence?
Not sure how it is relevant, but I'm confident that rianalnn is town and I have no read on IB. IB needs to post more.
Prod on Znejo please.
Why do you think this part of GM's post is scummy? It didn't stand out to me at all.
So the main case on me is fence-sitting. I've been called out for that before, so I'll vote when I feel confident that someone is scum.
Fair question. (or at least, fair to point this out)
Ok. This answer is clearly not serious.
I'm confused as to why you are seriously asking him to answer this. What response is he supposed to give? He can get serious and say that he was just RVS-ing and complimenting ZDS....or continue RVS-ing.
"Quit trying to end my RVS, scum(s)!" -well, I guess he can't get 'serious' if he still wants to RVS. So he picks choice #2 and keeps RVS-ing.
How is this a legitimate question? Unless you really want to hear him say "I was only RVS-ing" for some reason.
Again, he responds with more 'I like my RVS' stuff.
He even implies that he is town and that he doesn't know ZDS's alignment. (I would consider that a legitimate answer)
Now you are saying that you 'legitimate question' wasn't really a legitimate question at all? But an accusation? Why didn't you just accuse him in the first place? Why troll him like that?
And finally a 'serious' answer was given.
IGMEOY. The "last two mod mafia games" could be a townie reason for this quote. But, "Hopefully he has learned" sounds like coaching to me.
.......
Let's look at ganderin_dan as a townie for one sec. Here is how the compliment would have to go so that Tom wouldn't have to troll him like he did...
(Vote ZDS since all the townies can't beat him if he is scum and all the scum can't beat him if he is town.)
Oh look. The lengthy version of the compliment was implied.
So you state here that he has been giving sarcastic answers. But the question asked at the beginning is changed to include one of these sarcastic answers. And you still are claiming that your questions were legitimate?
That is not the original question.
FoS. I'm not sure how RVS-ing during RVS is dodgy. but ok.
Ummm. If ria saw 2 townies go suicide in his last game, then why is option 3 impossible?
I think RVS is over? Is this vote serious?
I'm pretty sure if you re-read GM's quote. He was saying you were pretty consistant, not ria.
Unvote. Vote: Tom
FoS: Gerrard's Mom
Fos: infectiousbaloth
I suppose I don't. But ZDS isn't the only one who thinks that me finding g_d dodgy is scummy. (This whole g_d thing reminds me of Checks and Balances re: Ahlyis, FWIW. Where I voted Ahlyis and got ran up for it.) If people think G_d was joking, and I just missed it because I got excited and thought we'd caught scum, then I'm probably just wrong. /shrug.
Tunnel vision is ZDS' term. Not mine. I wasn't tunneling on you, ignoring all others, I had just said "Well, Dan is scum". Decided to vote you, and read everything you had written as if it came from a scum mindset. You still could be scum, but your dodginess isn't scummy.
I thought Tom was right about Dan, and dropped a vote. Also, Mafia is a game of semantics; they're important.
With the whole thing between ganderin dan and Tom...
Ganderin dan's actions I can see from either perspective, and I don't see how one would be more likely.
I just can't see Tom's actions from a townie perspective.
Like, he claims he has been asking a simple question expecting a simple answer.
And he also claims that until the end ganderin dan has been giving sarcastic answers. But the problem is, half of those "legitimate questions" were assuming those sarcastic answers were true, which turned them into accusations instead of questions.
Tom's looking worse and worse with each post.
Riann puts me on edge, but I'm not used to his playstyle at all, he has done nothing scummy.
Gerrard's Mom reads as off to me as well, but it could just be that I'm unaccustomed to his (her?) playstyle.
I'm leaning scum on Void based on meta alone; he's asking a lot of questions but appears to be playing cautiously. (See: Detryptichos)
I can see a Town Tom misunderstanding once, but I can't see him misunderstanding for that long. Even after all those responses from Dan. If he is town, then I say OMGUS.
Especially since Tom kept pushing after this perfectly legitimate answer.
Also, if Tom was town, then what answer was he looking for from Dan that would make Dan scum?
Uh, that's a part, but the main thing I want you dead for is that point I made that was the color coded one.
I didn't say it wasn't possible. I considered it not plausible. Meaning extremely unlikely. And I considered it unlikely because most games I've seen do not have townies committing suicide. I don't believe ria was actually concerned that a townie would commit suicide that game just because a couple did in his last game.
You are probably right. I misinterpreted that part.
Never mind about that then.
That's fair. Like I said, I'm toying around with some styles of play. I don't have many games under my belt and I do not consider myself close to a good mafia player, so I'm practicing different things to learn more.
I'd like to hear some thoughts on this.
My point is that an avatar claim by its nature gives us no alignment information. There are no obviously "good" and "bad" avatars, unlike, say, the Star Fox theme of the ongoing Mod Mafia. Thus there is no need to fake claim another avatar.
With no alignment information to be gained, I assumed people would want to guess about abilities or something. Contrary to what you assume, my role is actually pretty closely tied to my avatar, but the role itself is unlike anything I have ever seen before, and that's why I'm assuming it will be hard to gain any information out of a mass claim.
Also, "I guess it is ok, but I don't see the point" was not intended to be a vote in favor. To clarify, I do not want to mass claim today.
In any case, I think your point about mass claiming being a bad idea is good, I just don't think you are pointing it the right way. I will.
Vote rianalnn
Yeah. You made this idea of yours quite clear. The problem I have with it is then you went on to say "so I guess this is ok". That implies that since there is no need to fake-claim another avatar, you think the proposal is ok. Scum are the only ones who would think a mass claim is ok because no fake-claims would be involved.
Then your mind-set is scummy.
I'm also not so sure that "no alignment information can be gained". Why are you?
"I guess this is ok" implies that you are ok with it.
Now you are saying that you do not want a mass claim.
When and why did you change your mind?
I don't recall making such a point.
So what's going on...?
Vote:arbitraryarmor
Answer, please?
I have nothing really relevant to say re: Zenjo's wall of quotes. Try to make them easier on the eyes.
AA's active lurking (in the fashion of noob scum, at that) bothers me, but not enough to want to unvote IB.
The whole Tom copying Seppel thing actually fits upon rereading and comparing to Seppel's notes at the end of KotH. If anything, this unnerves me slightly that he will be bucking he meta (but only for our reads, not as a personal/playstyle thing).
This is a great post. Mom says he doesn't know that any of Meg's av could inherently be considered scummy, which should lead him to the thought that there is therefor little obvious benefit for the town, but instead he's thinking the scum won't need to play around it. . . why is he thinking from scum perspective? & how is the town not being able to cakewalk scum from a mass claim "ok"? Huh? Then he starts leaking role information, why? He rounds it off not by stating his position one way or another, but by trying to attribute a position to me. & if this is actually another instance of me trying to appear town, where is the vote? It doesn't come until Tom calls Mom out for how terrible this post is.
Mom's follow-up is pretty choice too; He elaborates on not being able to glean alignment, but again fails to make the cognitive leap to 'what is the point of the claim then?' & instead seems to think that the idea is to start speculating role info – I don't understand that connection at all, & it seems to me like a suspicious next step. & then again leaking role info??
Next he tries to spin what he said; "so I guess this is ok" becomes "I guess it is ok, but I don't see the point" – & it still doesn't explain how a mass claim being no bother to scum = ok. Finally he votes me, presumably for being in support of a mass claim (which I never was).
The point was to see who had their thinking caps on; provide an easy topic to respond to with no clear benefit to the town.
This strikes me as a weak response; how does Meg's avatar "mattering" relate to if the claim helps or hurts the town? It seems like a soft idea & it isn't fleshed out; instead TMCT moves to the next idea, that we'll have more info to evaluate the outlook of the mass nameclaim, although he sets it out as if it's a sure thing, & it's not – the info revealed over the night may be useless in determining the value of a mass nameclaim. Then he refers to ZDS' post, but without connecting the dots of why [if there is a benefit to nameclaim]/[benefit does not exist today]. Lazy analysis isn't necessarily scummy, but this is a better look in on TMCT's thought process than we've seen so far.
*I* felt stagnated. It felt like the same people were dominating the thread, & I wasn't gleaning much from my interaction from Tom aside from reinforcing the weak overeager town feel I was getting. As I've said, I hoped to draw some posts from the less-heard corners with a soft pitch over the plate.
I wasn't thinking of anyone in particular when referring back the RVS fallout, just speaking of the general impression it has for me.
At this point I would like to review Mom's games, but effectively that guy has a hard yellow scum read for me & you can consider me on that wagon. Meanwhile I would like to see some pressure on arbitraryarmor to participate today, & not get a free pass into Day 2 as a cypher.
Can we say lurkshat?
vote Gerrard's Mom
You sound very, very sure that Tom is town. Why?
Are you really lurker lynching when we have perfectly good scum?
IB confirmed for not reading the thread.
This forum requires that you wait 30 seconds between posts. Please try again in 17 seconds.
My perspective was that the mass claim was not so bad because it would not lead to bad cases based on flavor gaming, but apparently that isn't the case. As ria noted, I wasn't really supporting it in my original statement, I just didn't see that it would do much harm or much good. I saw that there really isn't a point, so I clarified my position in my last post. Don't try to cast me as having taken a position I didn't take.
I'm confused about where Tom stands on the mass claim idea. You think it's a good idea because we are going to catch somebody with a scummy avatar?
"Who is up for a mass claim?" read as a direct proposal to mass claim and thus ria being in favor of claiming to me. He is now denying that and voting for someone who has provided next to no content. Lynching arbitraryarmor would give the town very little to go on. While I agree that he should be replaced, lynching lurkers does not really advance the town cause, so I'm keeping my vote on ria.
Yes, I just don't see GM's actions as town in motivation. My read on him is only stronger give some of the responses I have read from him.
Come join us in the MTGSalvation chat ||| My trade thread. ||| My Personal Modern Blog: The Fetchlands
You said "i guess this is ok".
Now you are saying that you do not think it is ok.
You also seem to be saying that you never changed your mind.
It doesn't add up. What am I missing?
I'm against a mass claim.
Can you point to where ria said that he was an advocate of lynching arbitraryarmor? I see where ria said that he wanted to pressure arbitraryarmor into playing the game, but not where he wanted to lynch him.
Ria: As ZDS said, AA clearly does not want to play. Your pressure vote isn't going to do much.
Re: my wording, it wasn't great, but you are ignoring the "but" clause. The statement was far from outright approval of mass claiming. For what it's worth, your attempt at analysis is good, Tom, I understand that my wording mistake will probably cost me my life. I'm going to spend the rest of my time today looking for scum, and hopefully my efforts will be useful for you guys when I flip town.
I'm sorry, I've just been rather busy. I'm sure that you wouldn't know about that - you probably have your mafia underlings carrying out your business for you.
Unvote: Tom
Vote: Rianalnn
@arbitraryarmor: What you are doing right now is not helpful. If you want to be helpful, read through the entire thread and then provide in-depth insight on who you think is scum and who you think is town (and your reasons for thinking it).
Also, if you feel like defending Gerrard's Mom, now is a great time to do so.
& he didn't just omgus; he slung mud at me, suggesting I was scum out of thin air (in addition to continuing to otherwise ignoring the thread).