Correct me if I'm wrong: you only think I asked that question to look busy, and have no other reasons for thinking that other than that you can't see the value of the question. Imagine that you could see a good reason for the question. Does my question still appear busy? No. There's a good reason for it, you just don't see the value in my reasoning.
Like I said before, I asked him why he self-voted in the hopes that it would give me an idea on his mindset this game.
Your case on this question does not hold water. It is dependent on my being scum, and has no other reasonable basis.
There is no value in a question already answered. No matter what you say, it will not suddenly become true.
IIRC that was in the same line as the question I missed.
And you think I can count on everyone else, a lot of which haven't really read the game yet, to also miss it and therefore I would be in the clear?
The odds of that are phenomenal.
You making this defense proves that you think this defense is possible, and that's why it was at least worth the shot.
And I think it was something different.
It's a language thing. I'm saying that in that sentence, "those of us", not "those of us who _____", is all-inclusive to mean those of us in the game.
Say theres a room full of people. Someone says "Everyone (all inclusive, referring to everyone in the room, guys and girls) who is a girl (smaller group, isn't necessarily referring to the person talking) please go to the stage".
"Everyone", without the modifier, is intended to get everyone's attention. Everyone in the room hears that and pays attention. Because it refers to everyone.
So, "Those of us (the players in this mafia game) who are town (smaller group, townies) know there's scum out there" is along the same tack.
I'm thinking my original statement was a bit ambiguous, maybe.
That actually makes some sense. I'll drop that bit.
He said I was jittery, which is different than shifty. Did you mean shifty to mean the same thing as jittery?
I did not have enough evidence to be sure of it until I saw that he also did it in another game I was in with him. Up till then, it was his word, the words of one(?) other person (I think it was just you that corroberated it, Wheat) and my recollection of him doing it ONCE. That, in and of itself, is not convincing. Not even close. You're saying I should have taken the words of you, whose alignment I don't know for sure, and IB, whose alignment I also don't know for sure, on their words. I have no reason to do that. It wasn't until I checked up on it that I could be sure that information was accurate.
You told me that you wanted analysis, which meant that you wanted me to analyze his reason that I had asked him for, and to tell you want conclusions that brought, correct? Am I wrong about that? Because that doesn't lead to double checking his claim.
And "all of a sudden, disconnected from these times" is not true. I took those times into consideration, but, like I said before, I had no reason to believe it before I double checked the info, which I had no reason to do until after your post 116, during which I checked what games we were both in. While I was doing that, I was checking what game I remembered him doing it in. Since I was doing that, I figured I might as well check the other games too, to see if he did it in those games as well. He did not do it that I found in Gotham, as he said he does it as a way of checking in, and he didn't do it in his first few posts.
Then I checked CCMVI. He did it there, which means I have personally seen him do it twice, which means that it's a habit for him. Which makes it null.
Analyzing a reaction includes checking claims, and since you came up with nothing you don't even have that for an excuse.
Given you got so much crap for it, there is no good reason for you not to have looked a ton sooner. When more than one person says something, don't you think you should?
@Wheat: given that I've answered this so many times already, which you would know as they were all in responses to you, would you classify this post by Prophy to be busy? He's not telling us what you and I hadn't already concluded shortly before he posted this.
More or less. He's been barning/buddying me for a few posts now. I think you two are trying to distance.
KJ's convoluted excuses regarding the "I'm a town" statement, I don't like. I'm pretty sure we all make references to ourselves as town at one point or another, and it's really not that much of a tell, imo.
I mean really, if I say "Town needs to ~", someone can accuse me of being unwilling to call myself town. Say "We need to ~", someone can accuse me of associating with town. IDK. That's how it seems to me.
So, if I had been the one who had been pointed out as such, I would just brush it off as pointless to persue. But you seem to see a very grave need to defend yourself on this point.
That's WIFOM. Was the response I gave inaccurate?
As to my defending myself, if you hadn't noticed, that's what I was already doing. I was trying to put my thinking into words. So, does it not make sense that I extend that line of thought to that answer as well?
Not sure what in that is WIFOM.
I'm saying Town would not feel the need to defend themselves on that point.
From what I understand, WIFOM is generally used in situations where "If I were scum, then ~".
In this situation, scum will possibly do the opposite to make themselves seem town.
But the opposite is stupid. "If I were town, then ~"
Then what? Town's gonna do the opposite to pretend to be scum?
I'm giving you scum points for doing what I don't believe town would do.
And now I'm suspicious of Wheat for accepting his convoluted excuses that seems a lot like it was patched up afterward.
The wine in front of me argument for that, st, is that both scum an town can make the if I were x arguments. They do not necessarily need to lie, deceive, or anything such. The statement itself can be looked at from a not finite number of angles and requires assumptions as to the mindset of the writer and whether or not their mindset assumes an anticipates your mindset. Ugh. The best way to understand wifom is to watch the scene. Iocene powder I think is a good search term for it.
Still operating under the knowledge that this barely blips me up to active. No-backup-stated I don't like Kj but I feel like his wagon must contain scum. Given that I couldn't catch him last game I don't value my read too highly
I understand what WIFOM is. And I'm not a fan of brushing off WIFOMs, as they still make for fine sample cases, imo, but that's a different matter.
I believe I explained why the situation isn't WIFOM.
Although I used "If I were ~", I was not talking, in the strict sense, about my own mindset.
I was talking about the mindset of town.
While it is hard to make assumptions regarding a certain person's mindset,
I'm pretty sure that's not true for a "town mindset".
And strictly in my own beliefs, a town faced with the question WG had posed KJ regarding softclaiming (?) town would not feel the need to defend themselves.
You can argue against me that my belief is wrong, but I will not accept "That's WIFOM" as a valid response.
So your argument is instead that a town would not defend himself against attacks on semantics that attempt to paint his word choice as scummy, because you are of the opinion that a town mindset would brush it off. Fun fact: you provided a defense by implying that both including and excluding oneself from "town" in a statement can be argued as a 'scumtell' on semantics.
While I agree that the semantic argument is weak, your own is fairly cut and dry Wine. Your opinion of a town mindset brushes off semantics but dislikes brushing off WIFOM. My opinion of a town mindset differs, as I feel that (proper) semantics can offer clues while WIFOM only offers headaches. There is no published Town Style Manual, and while a 'town mindset' is more or less something quantifiable, you will need significantly more than just "He's defending himself where I wouldn't." to avoid WIFOM.
To break it down, because pettifogging detail seems to be the norm:
KJ is accused of something on weak semantics, defends himself.
ST indicates that he wouldn't have done that, and that a town mindset wouldn't have done that. (Herein lies the wine)
ST is neither confirmed scum nor town. As such, he can be considered equally likely to be scum spinning misinformation, or Town stating his opinion on town mindsets.
KJ is neither confirmed scum nor town. As such, he can be considered equally likely to be scum floundering on a marginal slip, or Town defending his words against frivolous attack.
Since any and all possibilities lack confirming evidence to support one possibility over the other three (Simplifying here. There's probably ones I missed.), it is an exercise in idiocy to attempt to divine which cup, if not both or neither, is poisoned.
So your argument is instead that a town would not defend himself against attacks on semantics that attempt to paint his word choice as scummy, because you are of the opinion that a town mindset would brush it off. Fun fact: you provided a defense by implying that both including and excluding oneself from "town" in a statement can be argued as a 'scumtell' on semantics.
While I agree that the semantic argument is weak, your own is fairly cut and dry Wine. Your opinion of a town mindset brushes off semantics but dislikes brushing off WIFOM. My opinion of a town mindset differs, as I feel that (proper) semantics can offer clues while WIFOM only offers headaches. There is no published Town Style Manual, and while a 'town mindset' is more or less something quantifiable, you will need significantly more than just "He's defending himself where I wouldn't." to avoid WIFOM.
To break it down, because pettifogging detail seems to be the norm:
KJ is accused of something on weak semantics, defends himself.
ST indicates that he wouldn't have done that, and that a town mindset wouldn't have done that. (Herein lies the wine)
ST is neither confirmed scum nor town. As such, he can be considered equally likely to be scum spinning misinformation, or Town stating his opinion on town mindsets.
KJ is neither confirmed scum nor town. As such, he can be considered equally likely to be scum floundering on a marginal slip, or Town defending his words against frivolous attack.
Since any and all possibilities lack confirming evidence to support one possibility over the other three (Simplifying here. There's probably ones I missed.), it is an exercise in idiocy to attempt to divine which cup, if not both or neither, is poisoned.
So your argument is instead that a town would not defend himself against attacks on semantics that attempt to paint his word choice as scummy, because you are of the opinion that a town mindset would brush it off. Fun fact: you provided a defense by implying that both including and excluding oneself from "town" in a statement can be argued as a 'scumtell' on semantics.
While I agree that the semantic argument is weak, your own is fairly cut and dry Wine. Your opinion of a town mindset brushes off semantics but dislikes brushing off WIFOM. My opinion of a town mindset differs, as I feel that (proper) semantics can offer clues while WIFOM only offers headaches. There is no published Town Style Manual, and while a 'town mindset' is more or less something quantifiable, you will need significantly more than just "He's defending himself where I wouldn't." to avoid WIFOM.
To break it down, because pettifogging detail seems to be the norm:
KJ is accused of something on weak semantics, defends himself.
ST indicates that he wouldn't have done that, and that a town mindset wouldn't have done that. (Herein lies the wine)
ST is neither confirmed scum nor town. As such, he can be considered equally likely to be scum spinning misinformation, or Town stating his opinion on town mindsets.
KJ is neither confirmed scum nor town. As such, he can be considered equally likely to be scum floundering on a marginal slip, or Town defending his words against frivolous attack.
Since any and all possibilities lack confirming evidence to support one possibility over the other three (Simplifying here. There's probably ones I missed.), it is an exercise in idiocy to attempt to divine which cup, if not both or neither, is poisoned.
TL;DR -- WIFOM.
I'm not saying semantics can't be scumtells at all, though I haven't been in enough games to have seen someone actually get caught for semantics. I do stress that this particular argument is beyond weak.
Thank you for the detailed explanation.
I see that the argument has WIFOM factors from a different light from what I was seeing the situation in.
But tell me anyway, for my own benefit: would you have defended yourself on this point if you were KJ?
Wg: I have no actionable reads at this point. Later in the day I should be able to sit down and do some more thorough analysis.
St: Your earlier statement that either choice could be attacked would likely have been quite similar to my response. In fact I was attacked in basic 67 on Similar grounds and defended myself. This thread has been arguably harder to follow due to the breakdown of quoting caused by the addition of nested quotes , so I can't easily recall the exact situation kj was in. Easiest answer, with salt, I think I would have
I think AE is scum. He suggested a plan which includes lynching himself immediately, and keeps changing his stance on whether or not it is a real plan.
Where do you get these things? Am I really changing my stance? Really?
You're the one who included the plan among the two things you wanted storyteller to talk about when there are other things that actually matter to discuss. Therefore, you're placing importance on it. Then you tell me it isn't important, then you decide we should do it again because the game is dragging. That last one is probably a joke, but you just keep finding excuses to bring up the lynch order, which conveniently starts with your lynch. I think you're trying too hard to get town points.
He also goes after Proph for saying something colorful "put that vote back" rather than "unvote" when he hasn't even voted for anyone else, so there's nothing to be confused about.
Theres a reason. I wanted to make sure thats what he was talking about and not to put it back on KJ (who I didn't vote). He doesn't feel KJ is scum so for him to tell me to put it back on him would have had me turn to wanting Proph lynched.
Basically, he's jumping on many different people for the slightest excuses and his "plan" seems like an obvious gambit to gain town points.
You better show me the "many" people I'm jumping on so it doesn't look like your just throwing things in here to help make it look like you actually have a case. I don't need a gambit to gain town points. I'll just go out and lynch scum for that.
You've got the lamest arguments on kj's wagon, jumped on storyteller for looking at the thread and not immediately posting, and said the noncommital "I feel like I should be voting you" to prophy. That's what I have off the top of my head. I can go into greater detail later, but this post is taking a long time because I misplaced my mouse and I've got to leave in a few minutes.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'll bet you wish you had a non-unglued/unhinged card that shared your first name.
That trying to get yourself lynched causes more problems than its worth and bogs down discussions an can ruin Days. Wessel in haruhi 66 made a similarly bad play and caused a large amount of bad information to clog the game despite being town.
What town or scum wants to be lynched? To my knowledge it can only ever be a gambit and I don't see this one helping the town
That trying to get yourself lynched causes more problems than its worth and bogs down discussions an can ruin Days. Wessel in haruhi 66 made a similarly bad play and caused a large amount of bad information to clog the game despite being town.
What town or scum wants to be lynched? To my knowledge it can only ever be a gambit and I don't see this one helping the town
Wow your blowing this way out of context huh? I'll just let this go as you trying to add content and move on.
I was asked a question and gave a complete answer. You attempt to dismiss and trivialize without addressing what I've said.
Unvote to confirm Vote archmage eternal
I am totally dismissing it. I'm not trying to get lynched. It hasn't caused any problems. It hasn't bogged down any discussion, and the day has not and is not on it's way to be ruined. The fact is you and to an extent KoolKoal have tried to push a nonexistent issue. No one else. You say it boggs down discussion and ruins days but it is you that is doing that and pushing it off as me.
Your vote and argument has no bases and theres nothing for me to address because theres nothing there. Your trying to create something.
You're the one who included the plan among the two things you wanted storyteller to talk about when there are other things that actually matter to discuss. Therefore, you're placing importance on it.
At the time. At the begining of the game. This is what you need to understand. At that time he could have comment on what was going on instead of saying I have nothing to say. I still don't see how I'm changing my stance.
Then you tell me it isn't important, then you decide we should do it again because the game is dragging. That last one is probably a joke, but you just keep finding excuses to bring up the lynch order, which conveniently starts with your lynch. I think you're trying too hard to get town points.
Correct, joke.
You've got the lamest arguments on kj's wagon, jumped on storyteller for looking at the thread and not immediately posting, and said the noncommital "I feel like I should be voting you" to prophy. That's what I have off the top of my head. I can go into greater detail later, but this post is taking a long time because I misplaced my mouse and I've got to leave in a few minutes.
AE: If you cannot proof your own posts, I can only assume you're not going to check your own facts.
“I’m not trying to get lynched”
“a nonexistant issue”
Your Lynch Order (start with me!) gambit is the basis for your attacks in Post 74
Despite you seeming to find it irrelevant by post 116, you bring it back into play for post 128. When WG responds with who he feels we should be lynching, you outright INSIST “Start with me” (post 131)
Any and all commentary about your gambit is met with more dismissal (“So [you’re] really trying to smear me[,] huh? [You’re] starting to reach and [it’s] obviously horrible”)
“You and to an extent KoolKoal” : outright implying that I am the majority of this “push”, or that I am doing so more than Kool is. My first post about it is 161 where I say that I “almost want to hang him on principle” - As in, there is some belief I have about the way the game should be played that this gambit is something that can or will be problematic. Manders in 163 quotes and asks for clarification. Meaning that my more detailed response was -requested- rather than freely given and unprovoked. I respond promptly with a short explanation of how “trying to get yourself lynched” - which you allege is not what you are doing - is detrimental to a game, and has the potential to ruin Days. I then gave an example of a similar (though notably different) gambit that was left to run its course and caused a major stumbling block for the Town. I take it you didn’t read that, either.
You respond quickly with something I’ll have to use the quote function because it pains to transcribe.
Wow your blowing this way out of context huh? I'll just let this go as you trying to add content and move on.
Grammar aside, we have baseless dismissal on the notion of context, which I suspect you lacked while “quickly checking in” to post this, and you condescend to me (self aggrandizing, possibly arguing to (implied) authority, plain text making it sound like you’re the big boss and I need your pardon for my posts. ) as you brush my statements off. If you haven’t caught on, I’ll be matching your tone when addressing you in particular. I’ll not be tolerating abrasive players like I did with Shal and Tordeck.
When I accuse you of dismissing me the first time, you accept it, and argue that because something hasn’t happened, it cannot happen. You proclaim loudly and with many an absolute that there is nothing for you to address, and that this is purely my own fabrication.
I don't care much for AE's trolling for reactions.
What I do care about, however, is infectiousbaloth's self vote.
"Voting for yourself is considered a scum tactic because it makes you seem overly aware of who you are voting and trying not to bring suspicion on to yourself."
Going on by that logic I shall unvote, vote IB for the time being.
He does this all the time. Is it unusual? It would be if he didn't do it consistently. Is it bad times? Nah.
Because, while the logic of that particular guru's notion is somewhat sound (i.e. player wants to participate in RVS but doesn't want to lay a vote on a player for fear of drawing any attention), anyone who actually thinks like that is a moron.
I've played this game for what, seven years? And I've never seen anyone voting for him/herself in RVS that was later indicated as a scum tell, nor have I ever seen any correlation between such actions and alignment.
This battle between Nyxu and AE is distracting from the legitimate scum.
Acceptable. For the moment, Tabled. I assume your focus is KJ, then. My impressions are unfortunately none so verbose as those I have of AE. I do agree that there are instances of insencerity. Before AE's.. issues with my postings and responses I did intend to join the KJ wagon.
Wg: I have no actionable reads at this point. Later in the day I should be able to sit down and do some more thorough analysis.
St: Your earlier statement that either choice could be attacked would likely have been quite similar to my response. In fact I was attacked in basic 67 on Similar grounds and defended myself. This thread has been arguably harder to follow due to the breakdown of quoting caused by the addition of nested quotes , so I can't easily recall the exact situation kj was in. Easiest answer, with salt, I think I would have
KoolKoal: Feel free to take this with a grain of salt since self meta isn't particularly helpful, but I think I get scumread mostly for style over substance, but also for a certain lack of substance over style. It's not so much what I AM posting most of the time (though sometimes that can seem bad) but what I'm NOT posting. I've been told I come to non-obvious conclusions a lot, so when I post, quite a bit of the time there's jumps in logic that people can't follow and they think that's scummy. I get that accusation about a lot of questions I ask specifically. People call them "busy work" when the questions are legit etc.
As far as things to ignore, I can't think of anything. I would suggest you focus less on what I'm doing and more on how I'm doing it. That's probably more likely to be accurate. Like I've just said, what I do tends to come off a little weird, but if you look for how I do it, mindset comes into play and maybe you figure out something useful.
This battle between Nyxu and AE is distracting from the legitimate scum.
Acceptable. For the moment, Tabled. I assume your focus is KJ, then. My impressions are unfortunately none so verbose as those I have of AE. I do agree that there are instances of insencerity. Before AE's.. issues with my postings and responses I did intend to join the KJ wagon.
Wait... you had no actionable reads, but you intended to join my wagon? It can't be both. Which is it?
KoolKoal: Feel free to take this with a grain of salt since self meta isn't particularly helpful, but I think I get scumread mostly for style over substance, but also for a certain lack of substance over style. It's not so much what I AM posting most of the time (though sometimes that can seem bad) but what I'm NOT posting. I've been told I come to non-obvious conclusions a lot, so when I post, quite a bit of the time there's jumps in logic that people can't follow and they think that's scummy. I get that accusation about a lot of questions I ask specifically. People call them "busy work" when the questions are legit etc.
As far as things to ignore, I can't think of anything. I would suggest you focus less on what I'm doing and more on how I'm doing it. That's probably more likely to be accurate. Like I've just said, what I do tends to come off a little weird, but if you look for how I do it, mindset comes into play and maybe you figure out something useful.
Additional thoughts.
Baloth barnacles bubkis. Catchy. Anyway, I suggest considering that kj is operating in absolutes here, assuming that it would be impossible to become convinced in a short, catch up read through, and that my statement of no actionable reads (nothing I wanted to vote on ) couldn't also include suspicions and doubts not yet investigated or confirmed. His (kj) statements are neither groundbreaking nor evidentiary
It's almost like I read over the thread in those two hours, like that quote kj selected said I intended to
Ok. That excludes the most recent post. It still doesn't explain why you had no actionable reads, then as a sidenote, you test the waters for an ae lynch.
KoolKoal: Feel free to take this with a grain of salt since self meta isn't particularly helpful, but I think I get scumread mostly for style over substance, but also for a certain lack of substance over style. It's not so much what I AM posting most of the time (though sometimes that can seem bad) but what I'm NOT posting. I've been told I come to non-obvious conclusions a lot, so when I post, quite a bit of the time there's jumps in logic that people can't follow and they think that's scummy. I get that accusation about a lot of questions I ask specifically. People call them "busy work" when the questions are legit etc.
As far as things to ignore, I can't think of anything. I would suggest you focus less on what I'm doing and more on how I'm doing it. That's probably more likely to be accurate. Like I've just said, what I do tends to come off a little weird, but if you look for how I do it, mindset comes into play and maybe you figure out something useful.
Additional thoughts.
Baloth barnacles bubkis. Catchy. Anyway, I suggest considering that kj is operating in absolutes here, assuming that it would be impossible to become convinced in a short, catch up read through, and that my statement of no actionable reads (nothing I wanted to vote on ) couldn't also include suspicions and doubts not yet investigated or confirmed. His (kj) statements are neither groundbreaking nor evidentiary
AE is cause for suspicion for his behaviour and tone. I'll have to sit down and dig up his archive for a few key elements I noticed in his conversation patterns.
KJ has been quick to come to bear against suspicion, and his use of weak, more or less mudslinging tactics to discredit rather than refute has him leaning red.
You in particular have been pushing for decisions and succinct action. On its own town.
ST reads town to me simply by merit of his willingness to both argue and concede a point when presented with evidence. I count this as beneficial to a Town rather than a sign of weakness or wibbily-wobbily.
Prophyl proves difficult for me to get a handle on, but I have little cause that comes to mind to suspect.
The others I remain unsure of, and have no individualized commentary at this juncture.
OOG: Wreck it Ralph is a great movie, and the animation short before it is one of the best I've seen.
There is no value in a question already answered. No matter what you say, it will not suddenly become true.
The question wasn't answered when I asked it, and when I say you aren't seeing the value of the question, I'm saying you aren't seeing what information I was trying to get out of the question, which still seems to be true.
Analyzing a reaction includes checking claims, and since you came up with nothing you don't even have that for an excuse.
Not explicitly. Analyzing a reaction means taking into account other things from the game, and weighing it against prior mafia experience to see if you can tell anything about their alignment.
If there's continued need to check into a player, then the extra step is taken.
Given you got so much crap for it, there is no good reason for you not to have looked a ton sooner. When more than one person says something, don't you think you should?
Not if you didn't necessarily trust them, and didn't want to waste time on wild goose chases. I'm not gonna check EVERY claim someone makes to see if it's relevent, even if one person corroberates it.
Has anyone checked my "I don't get jittery" claim? I doubt it.
Hardly anyone had posted at that point. It's easier to determine scum when you have feelings on the alignments of most of the players, or at least content from them with which to analyze.
If, say, 8 people total have posted, then how do you know how many of the other people are scum?
So, so forced. Look at the difference between this and previous posts. Unvote Nis, Vote kill-joy
That makes no sense at all. Someone said I was jittery, to which I said I wasn't because reasons. Then someone said I was again. Either I'm missing something, or jittery has another meaning I'm not aware of.
Explain this "difference" for me, would you? I'm not seeing it.
KoolKoal: Feel free to take this with a grain of salt since self meta isn't particularly helpful, but I think I get scumread mostly for style over substance, but also for a certain lack of substance over style. It's not so much what I AM posting most of the time (though sometimes that can seem bad) but what I'm NOT posting. I've been told I come to non-obvious conclusions a lot, so when I post, quite a bit of the time there's jumps in logic that people can't follow and they think that's scummy. I get that accusation about a lot of questions I ask specifically. People call them "busy work" when the questions are legit etc.
As far as things to ignore, I can't think of anything. I would suggest you focus less on what I'm doing and more on how I'm doing it. That's probably more likely to be accurate. Like I've just said, what I do tends to come off a little weird, but if you look for how I do it, mindset comes into play and maybe you figure out something useful.
*reads screen*
*slams head on desk*
*read screen again*
*repeat*
At least we agree on something.
You keep trying to tell me your question had value. This is despite already having gotten an answer before you even asked (though you deny that too, he said he does it every game before you asked), and not having gotten anything worthwhile out of the answer.
On preplanning the defense, it's not really preplanning and even if you consider it to be that way, it's not a hard thing to do. You just take a look, decide to skip it, and think "I can defend this if it comes up".
On analyzing reactions: You can't tell me you were generally interested in what IB had to say and then not look into it. You can argue one or the other, but you can't argue both.
On "I don't get jittery": Does it really matter? So let's say you have never become jittery before, but then this game you have. Your other games then don't have a bearing on this game.
St: Your earlier statement that either choice could be attacked would likely have been quite similar to my response. In fact I was attacked in basic 67 on Similar grounds and defended myself. This thread has been arguably harder to follow due to the breakdown of quoting caused by the addition of nested quotes , so I can't easily recall the exact situation kj was in. Easiest answer, with salt, I think I would have
Sorry for bring up something that's passed, but I just now understood what you were saying.
You're right; that's what I meant by "brushing it off", but now that I think about it, that in itself is a defense.
So then I'm going to change my suspicion of KJ based not on the fact that he defended himself on that point, but rather how he defended himself.
This post feels like it was written in three sittings. So disjointed.
So? What's that tell you? Why is the appearance of disjointed thinking relevent?
It's three seperate, but connected points btw. It's not disjointed.
It feels pretty disjointed to me, like it was heavily edited or, as above, written in three sittings. That's a scummy behavior; town is concerned with uncovering the identities of the scum and not as much with appearance. Scum is all about seeming.
Hardly anyone had posted at that point. It's easier to determine scum when you have feelings on the alignments of most of the players, or at least content from them with which to analyze.
If, say, 8 people total have posted, then how do you know how many of the other people are scum?
So you were asked who your scumspects were after saying someone hadn't jumped to the top of your scumspects. You instead said who your current scumspect was but qualified that statement by saying that there wasn't enough information to determine alignment about anyone. ("[N]o one really has enough content to be even remotely sure of that.") Do you see how this is a problematic series of statements? You are trying to say you suspect Prophy while saying that you do not have enough information to suspect anyone.
So, so forced. Look at the difference between this and previous posts. Unvote Nis, Vote kill-joy
That makes no sense at all. Someone said I was jittery, to which I said I wasn't because reasons. Then someone said I was again. Either I'm missing something, or jittery has another meaning I'm not aware of.
Explain this "difference" for me, would you? I'm not seeing it.
The post I quoted is very academic in its bent. You're asking for someone to expand upon a thought. It reads like you're trying very hard to seem calm. (Again with the concern for appearance.) Your previous posts have the more natural investigative thought process behind them. This sudden shift indicates to me a purposeful tone shift. Townies insist. Scum bend to the town's will to fit in. You have done the latter.
This was the serious vote you were talking about? You want to enlighten us more on it?
My initial thought was "Nis posted in RVS without voting and must therefore be scared to vote in RVS." Now, however, I am remembering that Nis has played plenty of Mafia and so would be unlikely to make this slip as scum. I also remember Nis being taciturn. Regardless, I now believe this is null.
So, so weak. A lame excuse to jump on a bad wagon. Unvote, Vote Raging Levine
Now we might have a legitimate lead.[/QUOTE]
Gosh, I wish I could put you two in separate rooms and make you each explain this in your own words. I'll just have to settle for asking you both to explain yourselves. Right now I feel like you're just bulldogging onto KK's weak attack because you're in bulldog mode, as I alluded to earlier.
My initial thought was "Nis posted in RVS without voting and must therefore be scared to vote in RVS." Now, however, I am remembering that Nis has played plenty of Mafia and so would be unlikely to make this slip as scum. I also remember Nis being taciturn. Regardless, I now believe this is null.
Well just yesterday you said the vote was serious. Now you say its null. Nis hasn't even done anything. Your coming across as self conscious. No one has said anything on the matter but your making it a point. Just to not make it a point.
My initial thought was "Nis posted in RVS without voting and must therefore be scared to vote in RVS." Now, however, I am remembering that Nis has played plenty of Mafia and so would be unlikely to make this slip as scum. I also remember Nis being taciturn. Regardless, I now believe this is null.
Never been described as "taciturn" before. I will admit it does fit.
However, I took your vote on me as just a RVS vote. So you're saying it wasn't at first but now is null? AE does make a good point that you've provided clarification as justification when it wasn't even needed. I hate to continue the whole fishing thing, but something definitely smells fishy here.
Well just yesterday you said the vote was serious. Now you say its null. Nis hasn't even done anything. Your coming across as self conscious. No one has said anything on the matter but your making it a point. Just to not make it a point.
Well, initially I was going to make a point, but then I realized I was wrong.
However, I took your vote on me as just a RVS vote. So you're saying it wasn't at first but now is null? AE does make a good point that you've provided clarification as justification when it wasn't even needed. I hate to continue the whole fishing thing, but something definitely smells fishy here.
Yes, at first, I thought I had something real. Now, however, I realize I don't. When I made my second post I intended to spark some discussion about it, but I figured out it wasn't a real thing, and I said as much. Not sure why this is a problem in any way other than I'm stupid.
No. More like hoping to get you lynched. There is a wagon on you.
But I'm now uncertain of it.
They hate us cause they ain't us.
There is no value in a question already answered. No matter what you say, it will not suddenly become true.
You making this defense proves that you think this defense is possible, and that's why it was at least worth the shot.
And I think it was something different.
That actually makes some sense. I'll drop that bit.
Yes. Both refer to someone who is nervous.
Analyzing a reaction includes checking claims, and since you came up with nothing you don't even have that for an excuse.
Given you got so much crap for it, there is no good reason for you not to have looked a ton sooner. When more than one person says something, don't you think you should?
More or less. He's been barning/buddying me for a few posts now. I think you two are trying to distance.
Not sure what in that is WIFOM.
I'm saying Town would not feel the need to defend themselves on that point.
From what I understand, WIFOM is generally used in situations where "If I were scum, then ~".
In this situation, scum will possibly do the opposite to make themselves seem town.
But the opposite is stupid. "If I were town, then ~"
Then what? Town's gonna do the opposite to pretend to be scum?
I'm giving you scum points for doing what I don't believe town would do.
And now I'm suspicious of Wheat for accepting his convoluted excuses that seems a lot like it was patched up afterward.
For now, Vote KJ
Basic 82: Hayate the Combat Butler Mafia
Town Doctor, NK N1
Mini: Drury Lane Mafia
Replaced out D1
Mafia "Stuffer"
Basic 80: Sesame Street Mafia
Town Mason, NK N1
Scum Victory
Basic 68: Mr. Potato Head Mafia
Replacing Marblez D2
Town Vanilla, Lynched Last Day (D6)
Scum Victory
Mini: Eeveelution Mafia
Town Umbreon, Modkilled D1
Scum Victory
Mini: Deitriptychos Mafia
Town Necromancer, NK N1
Town Victory
Still operating under the knowledge that this barely blips me up to active. No-backup-stated I don't like Kj but I feel like his wagon must contain scum. Given that I couldn't catch him last game I don't value my read too highly
I believe I explained why the situation isn't WIFOM.
Although I used "If I were ~", I was not talking, in the strict sense, about my own mindset.
I was talking about the mindset of town.
While it is hard to make assumptions regarding a certain person's mindset,
I'm pretty sure that's not true for a "town mindset".
And strictly in my own beliefs, a town faced with the question WG had posed KJ regarding softclaiming (?) town would not feel the need to defend themselves.
You can argue against me that my belief is wrong, but I will not accept "That's WIFOM" as a valid response.
Basic 82: Hayate the Combat Butler Mafia
Town Doctor, NK N1
Mini: Drury Lane Mafia
Replaced out D1
Mafia "Stuffer"
Basic 80: Sesame Street Mafia
Town Mason, NK N1
Scum Victory
Basic 68: Mr. Potato Head Mafia
Replacing Marblez D2
Town Vanilla, Lynched Last Day (D6)
Scum Victory
Mini: Eeveelution Mafia
Town Umbreon, Modkilled D1
Scum Victory
Mini: Deitriptychos Mafia
Town Necromancer, NK N1
Town Victory
While I agree that the semantic argument is weak, your own is fairly cut and dry Wine. Your opinion of a town mindset brushes off semantics but dislikes brushing off WIFOM. My opinion of a town mindset differs, as I feel that (proper) semantics can offer clues while WIFOM only offers headaches. There is no published Town Style Manual, and while a 'town mindset' is more or less something quantifiable, you will need significantly more than just "He's defending himself where I wouldn't." to avoid WIFOM.
To break it down, because pettifogging detail seems to be the norm:
KJ is accused of something on weak semantics, defends himself.
ST indicates that he wouldn't have done that, and that a town mindset wouldn't have done that. (Herein lies the wine)
ST is neither confirmed scum nor town. As such, he can be considered equally likely to be scum spinning misinformation, or Town stating his opinion on town mindsets.
KJ is neither confirmed scum nor town. As such, he can be considered equally likely to be scum floundering on a marginal slip, or Town defending his words against frivolous attack.
Since any and all possibilities lack confirming evidence to support one possibility over the other three (Simplifying here. There's probably ones I missed.), it is an exercise in idiocy to attempt to divine which cup, if not both or neither, is poisoned.
TL;DR -- WIFOM.
Who do you think is scum currently?
I'm not saying semantics can't be scumtells at all, though I haven't been in enough games to have seen someone actually get caught for semantics. I do stress that this particular argument is beyond weak.
Thank you for the detailed explanation.
I see that the argument has WIFOM factors from a different light from what I was seeing the situation in.
But tell me anyway, for my own benefit: would you have defended yourself on this point if you were KJ?
Basic 82: Hayate the Combat Butler Mafia
Town Doctor, NK N1
Mini: Drury Lane Mafia
Replaced out D1
Mafia "Stuffer"
Basic 80: Sesame Street Mafia
Town Mason, NK N1
Scum Victory
Basic 68: Mr. Potato Head Mafia
Replacing Marblez D2
Town Vanilla, Lynched Last Day (D6)
Scum Victory
Mini: Eeveelution Mafia
Town Umbreon, Modkilled D1
Scum Victory
Mini: Deitriptychos Mafia
Town Necromancer, NK N1
Town Victory
St: Your earlier statement that either choice could be attacked would likely have been quite similar to my response. In fact I was attacked in basic 67 on Similar grounds and defended myself. This thread has been arguably harder to follow due to the breakdown of quoting caused by the addition of nested quotes , so I can't easily recall the exact situation kj was in. Easiest answer, with salt, I think I would have
I guess that's fair.
You've got the lamest arguments on kj's wagon, jumped on storyteller for looking at the thread and not immediately posting, and said the noncommital "I feel like I should be voting you" to prophy. That's what I have off the top of my head. I can go into greater detail later, but this post is taking a long time because I misplaced my mouse and I've got to leave in a few minutes.
I'll post as soon as I can.
What principle would that be?
Tired of corporate corruption ruining your favorite MtG site?
Come join ours!!
We even have Mafia!!
What town or scum wants to be lynched? To my knowledge it can only ever be a gambit and I don't see this one helping the town
Wow your blowing this way out of context huh? I'll just let this go as you trying to add content and move on.
They hate us cause they ain't us.
Unvote to confirm
Vote archmage eternal
I am totally dismissing it. I'm not trying to get lynched. It hasn't caused any problems. It hasn't bogged down any discussion, and the day has not and is not on it's way to be ruined. The fact is you and to an extent KoolKoal have tried to push a nonexistent issue. No one else. You say it boggs down discussion and ruins days but it is you that is doing that and pushing it off as me.
Your vote and argument has no bases and theres nothing for me to address because theres nothing there. Your trying to create something.
They hate us cause they ain't us.
At the time. At the begining of the game. This is what you need to understand. At that time he could have comment on what was going on instead of saying I have nothing to say. I still don't see how I'm changing my stance.
Correct, joke.
Ok thats a few not "many".
They hate us cause they ain't us.
“I’m not trying to get lynched”
“a nonexistant issue”
Your Lynch Order (start with me!) gambit is the basis for your attacks in Post 74
Despite you seeming to find it irrelevant by post 116, you bring it back into play for post 128. When WG responds with who he feels we should be lynching, you outright INSIST “Start with me” (post 131)
Any and all commentary about your gambit is met with more dismissal (“So [you’re] really trying to smear me[,] huh? [You’re] starting to reach and [it’s] obviously horrible”)
“You and to an extent KoolKoal” : outright implying that I am the majority of this “push”, or that I am doing so more than Kool is. My first post about it is 161 where I say that I “almost want to hang him on principle” - As in, there is some belief I have about the way the game should be played that this gambit is something that can or will be problematic. Manders in 163 quotes and asks for clarification. Meaning that my more detailed response was -requested- rather than freely given and unprovoked. I respond promptly with a short explanation of how “trying to get yourself lynched” - which you allege is not what you are doing - is detrimental to a game, and has the potential to ruin Days. I then gave an example of a similar (though notably different) gambit that was left to run its course and caused a major stumbling block for the Town. I take it you didn’t read that, either.
You respond quickly with something I’ll have to use the quote function because it pains to transcribe.
Grammar aside, we have baseless dismissal on the notion of context, which I suspect you lacked while “quickly checking in” to post this, and you condescend to me (self aggrandizing, possibly arguing to (implied) authority, plain text making it sound like you’re the big boss and I need your pardon for my posts. ) as you brush my statements off. If you haven’t caught on, I’ll be matching your tone when addressing you in particular. I’ll not be tolerating abrasive players like I did with Shal and Tordeck.
When I accuse you of dismissing me the first time, you accept it, and argue that because something hasn’t happened, it cannot happen. You proclaim loudly and with many an absolute that there is nothing for you to address, and that this is purely my own fabrication.
I submit that this is frankly untrue.
He does this all the time. Is it unusual? It would be if he didn't do it consistently. Is it bad times? Nah.
This post feels like it was written in three sittings. So disjointed.
Thank you.
And this is supposed to mean what, exactly?
Put the gun down. Seriously. You are trying too hard.
So, so forced. Look at the difference between this and previous posts. Unvote Nis, Vote kill-joy
Ever been fishing?
Acceptable. For the moment, Tabled. I assume your focus is KJ, then. My impressions are unfortunately none so verbose as those I have of AE. I do agree that there are instances of insencerity. Before AE's.. issues with my postings and responses I did intend to join the KJ wagon.
Next post:
Bolded mine.
How do you go from "I have no actionable reads" to "Hey, anyone else wanna lynch AE for his suicide plan?" in less than 2 hours?
I also need to read AE again. But for now, I thought this progression of posts were worth pointing out.
Good night all.
Wait... you had no actionable reads, but you intended to join my wagon? It can't be both. Which is it?
unvote; vote Nyxu
This forum requires that you wait 30 seconds between posts. Please try again in 3 seconds.
I lol'd.
Looks not so good for IB but then again I've been wrong about IB a lot lately. I'd rather lynch Proph as the second candidate before IB.
Baloth barnacles bubkis. Catchy. Anyway, I suggest considering that kj is operating in absolutes here, assuming that it would be impossible to become convinced in a short, catch up read through, and that my statement of no actionable reads (nothing I wanted to vote on ) couldn't also include suspicions and doubts not yet investigated or confirmed. His (kj) statements are neither groundbreaking nor evidentiary
Ok. That excludes the most recent post. It still doesn't explain why you had no actionable reads, then as a sidenote, you test the waters for an ae lynch.
Do you have reads on anyone?
At this juncture yes:
AE is cause for suspicion for his behaviour and tone. I'll have to sit down and dig up his archive for a few key elements I noticed in his conversation patterns.
KJ has been quick to come to bear against suspicion, and his use of weak, more or less mudslinging tactics to discredit rather than refute has him leaning red.
You in particular have been pushing for decisions and succinct action. On its own town.
ST reads town to me simply by merit of his willingness to both argue and concede a point when presented with evidence. I count this as beneficial to a Town rather than a sign of weakness or wibbily-wobbily.
Prophyl proves difficult for me to get a handle on, but I have little cause that comes to mind to suspect.
The others I remain unsure of, and have no individualized commentary at this juncture.
OOG: Wreck it Ralph is a great movie, and the animation short before it is one of the best I've seen.
I'll get back to you later. I very much don't like you right now.
The question wasn't answered when I asked it, and when I say you aren't seeing the value of the question, I'm saying you aren't seeing what information I was trying to get out of the question, which still seems to be true.
This logic is terrible. Seriously.
Are you really saying I preplanned this defense?
What do you think it was then?
Not explicitly. Analyzing a reaction means taking into account other things from the game, and weighing it against prior mafia experience to see if you can tell anything about their alignment.
If there's continued need to check into a player, then the extra step is taken.
Not if you didn't necessarily trust them, and didn't want to waste time on wild goose chases. I'm not gonna check EVERY claim someone makes to see if it's relevent, even if one person corroberates it.
Has anyone checked my "I don't get jittery" claim? I doubt it.
*reads screen*
*slams head on desk*
*read screen again*
*repeat*
That's cuz you think I'm scum. There is NO OTHER REASON for you to think that.
So? What's that tell you? Why is the appearance of disjointed thinking relevent?
It's three seperate, but connected points btw. It's not disjointed.
Hardly anyone had posted at that point. It's easier to determine scum when you have feelings on the alignments of most of the players, or at least content from them with which to analyze.
If, say, 8 people total have posted, then how do you know how many of the other people are scum?
How do you feel about AE, and why?
That makes no sense at all. Someone said I was jittery, to which I said I wasn't because reasons. Then someone said I was again. Either I'm missing something, or jittery has another meaning I'm not aware of.
Explain this "difference" for me, would you? I'm not seeing it.
You're alluding that AE is fishing here. Fishing for what?
At least we agree on something.
You keep trying to tell me your question had value. This is despite already having gotten an answer before you even asked (though you deny that too, he said he does it every game before you asked), and not having gotten anything worthwhile out of the answer.
On preplanning the defense, it's not really preplanning and even if you consider it to be that way, it's not a hard thing to do. You just take a look, decide to skip it, and think "I can defend this if it comes up".
On analyzing reactions: You can't tell me you were generally interested in what IB had to say and then not look into it. You can argue one or the other, but you can't argue both.
On "I don't get jittery": Does it really matter? So let's say you have never become jittery before, but then this game you have. Your other games then don't have a bearing on this game.
Sorry for bring up something that's passed, but I just now understood what you were saying.
You're right; that's what I meant by "brushing it off", but now that I think about it, that in itself is a defense.
So then I'm going to change my suspicion of KJ based not on the fact that he defended himself on that point, but rather how he defended himself.
Basic 82: Hayate the Combat Butler Mafia
Town Doctor, NK N1
Mini: Drury Lane Mafia
Replaced out D1
Mafia "Stuffer"
Basic 80: Sesame Street Mafia
Town Mason, NK N1
Scum Victory
Basic 68: Mr. Potato Head Mafia
Replacing Marblez D2
Town Vanilla, Lynched Last Day (D6)
Scum Victory
Mini: Eeveelution Mafia
Town Umbreon, Modkilled D1
Scum Victory
Mini: Deitriptychos Mafia
Town Necromancer, NK N1
Town Victory
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
Why do you feel this is worthy of attention?
I'd ask you the same question. The statement is pretty clear to me.
So, so weak. A lame excuse to jump on a bad wagon. Unvote, Vote Raging Levine
It feels pretty disjointed to me, like it was heavily edited or, as above, written in three sittings. That's a scummy behavior; town is concerned with uncovering the identities of the scum and not as much with appearance. Scum is all about seeming.
So you were asked who your scumspects were after saying someone hadn't jumped to the top of your scumspects. You instead said who your current scumspect was but qualified that statement by saying that there wasn't enough information to determine alignment about anyone. ("[N]o one really has enough content to be even remotely sure of that.") Do you see how this is a problematic series of statements? You are trying to say you suspect Prophy while saying that you do not have enough information to suspect anyone.
AE is trying too hard. I think he's town but I think he's wasting his (and everyone's) time.
The post I quoted is very academic in its bent. You're asking for someone to expand upon a thought. It reads like you're trying very hard to seem calm. (Again with the concern for appearance.) Your previous posts have the more natural investigative thought process behind them. This sudden shift indicates to me a purposeful tone shift. Townies insist. Scum bend to the town's will to fit in. You have done the latter.
[/quote]
No, I am asking if AE has ever been fishing in real life. This is a legitimate question.
Mimicry just means you secretly love me.
See below.
Drop the anchor.
Seems like it but for what? Maybe its a legit oog question. Just being funny. RL?
This was the serious vote you were talking about? You want to enlighten us more on it?
Now we might have a legitimate lead.
They hate us cause they ain't us.
Ok I'll bite. (haha no pun intended. But its funny).
I sure have. Relevance?
They hate us cause they ain't us.
I am really asking you this question. Please answer it.
My initial thought was "Nis posted in RVS without voting and must therefore be scared to vote in RVS." Now, however, I am remembering that Nis has played plenty of Mafia and so would be unlikely to make this slip as scum. I also remember Nis being taciturn. Regardless, I now believe this is null.
Now we might have a legitimate lead.[/QUOTE]
Gosh, I wish I could put you two in separate rooms and make you each explain this in your own words. I'll just have to settle for asking you both to explain yourselves. Right now I feel like you're just bulldogging onto KK's weak attack because you're in bulldog mode, as I alluded to earlier.
Lots, or only a couple of times?
Well just yesterday you said the vote was serious. Now you say its null. Nis hasn't even done anything. Your coming across as self conscious. No one has said anything on the matter but your making it a point. Just to not make it a point.
Tons. Salt/fresh. Streams/ponds/lakes. Shore/boat/jetties.
They hate us cause they ain't us.
I'm never a fan of people making jokes out of serious votes, so +scum to RL.
Never been described as "taciturn" before. I will admit it does fit.
However, I took your vote on me as just a RVS vote. So you're saying it wasn't at first but now is null? AE does make a good point that you've provided clarification as justification when it wasn't even needed. I hate to continue the whole fishing thing, but something definitely smells fishy here.
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
Well, initially I was going to make a point, but then I realized I was wrong.
Yes, at first, I thought I had something real. Now, however, I realize I don't. When I made my second post I intended to spark some discussion about it, but I figured out it wasn't a real thing, and I said as much. Not sure why this is a problem in any way other than I'm stupid.