I consider jittery to be more like a mouse, paranoid of every shadow, just trying to get the danger away.
Shifty is more to me like just being shady in general. Like a cloaked guy making sure he's not followed into the alley where he conducts his black market deals.
I found your definition to be closer to the former.
Thanks for splitting THAT particular hair.
And since both definitions above depict behaviors I'd consider suspicious in this game, I'm wondering why you're so keen on said hair-splitting.
It's also particularly curious that he accuses multiple people - in the same post - of not reading.
Yeah, AE's plan could just be a gambit to sow the seeds of WIFOM, but I like k-j's point about Nyxu.
unvote; vote Nyxu
Oh look, infectiousbaloth's intervening to save his scumbuddy. That's nice.
(Before someone asks me "why?", I think Nyxu overreacted to AE, but overreacted like a townie; KJ's overlooking this to try to swerve attention onto Nyxu, but doesn't vote for it, in 174; and IB "leap-frogs" KJ's post to place a real vote to reinforce the fake suspicion.)
I have finished my notes and ready to make a full post tomorrow. I am sorry for the decline in my activity. I have been helping with several games and neglecting this thread.
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.
A) You never answered my question.
B) Can you explain the first half of this? The wording confuses me. As to the second, since you claim I have "mudslinging tactics", that implies I've been doing something more than once that qualifies as that. Can you back up your claim?
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.
I see what you're saying.
It has to do with my method of finding scum. When enough people have posted, I weigh who I think is town vs. who I think is scum. At that point, there was almost no participation, but the person I saw that was the scummiest given the information I had was Prophy.
My certainty wasn't very high due to the lack of participation, and the odds that the two scum were still not in the game yet was high, but out of the people who were talking, only Prophy was acting scummy enough to make me look into him.
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.
I disagree with your assessment. That's not what I'm doing in the post in question.
Xyre said I have X attribute. I think X has a, b, c qualities. I do not think I have those qualities , so I disagree. He continues to say I do. So I respond with "define what you think X is" because it's possible that some of a, b, or c does not fit in his definition of X. That was my thought process.
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.
So, you didn't think the way I defended myself before was scummy, but now do since your original argument is invalid?
Also can you explain your suspicion of me instead of some vague "how he defended himself is scummy" phrase?
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.
The question DID have value. I asked to see his reasoning for it THIS GAME. If his answer was as simple as just " I do it every game" with no other reasoning, I could have extrapolated that he was doing it this game BECAUSE he does it every game, which could well be forced. That has bearing on his alignment.
However, his answer was that he does it to introduce himself. That has no relevence to any gamestate he does it in, nor is dependent on any role he may have, nor requires a specific mindset. Therefore, I got nothing out of his answer. But the question DID have value when I asked it, dependent entirely on his 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".
But there is absolutely no way to prove that mindset, so I don't see how it can be part of any logical argument you could make. That's what boggles me, is that you're saying these things but have no logical basis with which to draw those conclusions. You seem to just be basically taking the scummier of two possibilities and attributing it to me at every turn.
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.
If you expect me to look up IB's voting history, then it's not unreasonable for when someone says I'm jittery, and I refute it by saying I don't get jittery, I can expect that people will check that. It's the same thing as what you're saying I should have done.
Yeah, AE's plan could just be a gambit to sow the seeds of WIFOM, but I like k-j's point about Nyxu.
unvote; vote Nyxu
Oh look, infectiousbaloth's intervening to save his scumbuddy. That's nice.
(Before someone asks me "why?", I think Nyxu overreacted to AE, but overreacted like a townie; KJ's overlooking this to try to swerve attention onto Nyxu, but doesn't vote for it, in 174; and IB "leap-frogs" KJ's post to place a real vote to reinforce the fake suspicion.)
At the bolded: You say I'm overlooking the towniness of Nyxu's overreaction to swerve attention onto Nyxu. If I'm scum, wouldn't I already know he's town, ergo removing the need to overlook towniness?
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.
Agreeing with K-j, even if K-j is scum, does not make me scum. I'm sure you can agree with this statement.
However, for the sake of argument, let's assume that K-j and I are both scum, as you imagine in your scenario, shall we?
We know there are two scum.
In Xyre-land, the two scum are Kill-joy and InfectiousBaloth.
What can be gained by tying myself to K-j? Knowing that there are ONLY two scum, and there are no PRs?
K-j seems like he could reasonably be mafia, and has enough pressure on him that any minor slip-up could very easily lead to his demise.
By putting myself in front of him, assuming that I am his scumbuddy, I risk being lynched myself, and having him lynched in short order the following day. This completely botches the game.
I like k-j's point against nyxu and my best way to pressure nyxu is to vote for him. That doesn't make k-j scum, nor does it make me his scumbuddy. That being said, I'm a bit surprised that you, of all players, would make that jump in logic.
It has to do with my method of finding scum. When enough people have posted, I weigh who I think is town vs. who I think is scum. At that point, there was almost no participation, but the person I saw that was the scummiest given the information I had was Prophy.
My certainty wasn't very high due to the lack of participation, and the odds that the two scum were still not in the game yet was high, but out of the people who were talking, only Prophy was acting scummy enough to make me look into him.
Does that make sense?
Not really, no. You say enough people hadn't posted, so why were you weighing town vs. scum at that point? You outline your scumhunting method and then go on to explain how you didn't use 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.
I disagree with your assessment. That's not what I'm doing in the post in question.
Xyre said I have X attribute. I think X has a, b, c qualities. I do not think I have those qualities , so I disagree. He continues to say I do. So I respond with "define what you think X is" because it's possible that some of a, b, or c does not fit in his definition of X. That was my thought process.
The question DID have value. I asked to see his reasoning for it THIS GAME. If his answer was as simple as just " I do it every game" with no other reasoning, I could have extrapolated that he was doing it this game BECAUSE he does it every game, which could well be forced. That has bearing on his alignment.
In what way does it have bearing on his alignment?
However, his answer was that he does it to introduce himself. That has no relevence to any gamestate he does it in, nor is dependent on any role he may have, nor requires a specific mindset. Therefore, I got nothing out of his answer. But the question DID have value when I asked it, dependent entirely on his answer.
But there is absolutely no way to prove that mindset, so I don't see how it can be part of any logical argument you could make. That's what boggles me, is that you're saying these things but have no logical basis with which to draw those conclusions. You seem to just be basically taking the scummier of two possibilities and attributing it to me at every turn.
So you're saying that because he can't prove (your word!) that you were thinking in a certain way, he can't use his suspicion that you did so in an argument? I... but... if this is the case, how do we play this game?
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.
If you expect me to look up IB's voting history, then it's not unreasonable for when someone says I'm jittery, and I refute it by saying I don't get jittery, I can expect that people will check that. It's the same thing as what you're saying I should have done.
There is a world of difference between a judgment about your behavior and a data-centric, provable statement about IB's voting history.
I want you to tell me why I feel like those people aren't/weren't reading.
You and I aren't having the same debate, mate. I'm highlighting it as another example of the "people don't understand me" routine
Here's a hint. If most people in the game don't understand your arguments, THEY AREN'T GOOD ARGUMENTS, your belief to the contrary notwithstanding. And the fact that you keep falling back on them bothers me.
Quote from kill-joy »
And what does splitting hairs have to do with anything?
You! You're splitting hairs. You're drawing a trite distinction between two words used to express the general sentiment of "shiftiness" to sidestep the greater issue, which is that many of us think your posts were shifty. And when you say "I wasn't being shifty, people don't understand me" -
- well, put it to you this way. You know who uses that argument? "People don't understand me?" You know how accurate that claim is? Unless you're a Nazi sleeper agent or something, NEVER NEVER NEVER.
At the bolded: You say I'm overlooking the towniness of Nyxu's overreaction to swerve attention onto Nyxu. If I'm scum, wouldn't I already know he's town, ergo removing the need to overlook towniness?
How does that make sense?
Well, duh, but my point was it should have been clear Nyxu's just a silly person, not a scum, so only a scum would think it reasonable to jump on Nyxu to try to kick-start a wagon.
Obviously, that point is holding less water now with infectiousbaloth. But I still think your intentions in making that post are still important, and still negative. You have an incentive to find an alternative wagon; you found that alternative wagon in a dodgy place; and you pulled the scum move of trying to passively start that wagon.
Agreeing with K-j, even if K-j is scum, does not make me scum. I'm sure you can agree with this statement.
However, for the sake of argument, let's assume that K-j and I are both scum, as you imagine in your scenario, shall we?
We know there are two scum.
In Xyre-land, the two scum are Kill-joy and InfectiousBaloth.
What can be gained by tying myself to K-j? Knowing that there are ONLY two scum, and there are no PRs?
K-j seems like he could reasonably be mafia, and has enough pressure on him that any minor slip-up could very easily lead to his demise.
By putting myself in front of him, assuming that I am his scumbuddy, I risk being lynched myself, and having him lynched in short order the following day. This completely botches the game.
I like k-j's point against nyxu and my best way to pressure nyxu is to vote for him. That doesn't make k-j scum, nor does it make me his scumbuddy. That being said, I'm a bit surprised that you, of all players, would make that jump in logic.
It's not a jump in logic, it's a reasoned point (if I take you as wise enough to not take things a player you suspect, or for that matter any player, at face value). But the number of qualifiers in that last paragraph gives me pause. The intervention-on-KJ's-behalf was a relatively low-risk scenario, notwithstanding your contrary characterizations, but I don't see a scumbuddy employing quite this much distancing after being called out by one person. Fair enough.
I don't see a question I haven't addressed. Why don't you ask me what you want and I'll write up an answer just as quick as I can. Sound fair? Heck, maybe even link to what I've clearly ( to you ) missed
So, so forced. Look at the difference between this and previous posts. Unvote Nis, Vote kill-joy
Why don't you compare these posts? Show us what your talking about. You obviously have an idea as you voted, so make the case.
So did the fishing question have any bearing on the game? Or do you just want me to take you sometime?
Studying for an exam. Not likely to happen until Friday at earliest.
Fishing question was to ask if you knew trolling was a fishing term. WG pre-empted me so I dropped it.
EBWOP: however I explained to kill-joy about the difference, so feel free to view his posts through that lens and see if my analysis makes sense to you on that level
Sorry, guys, but I have to replace out. I don't have time for Mafia.
Noted and PM for replacements sent.
Hope things work out / you get some more free time in the near future (especially with Christmas/New Years coming up in a month).
Unrelated: I am going on vacation this next week, but I should have internet access / be able to check the game. If somehow I dont, I promise there will be a votecount on Friday, and another at the very latest next Friday. Again, thats the worst case / I dont have internet scenario.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from hotshizzle »
<hotshizle> WINE IN FRONT OF MEAL
<hotshizle> i think
Ah. Sorry. Kj in that one but as an open statement if you feel I've missed a question of yours itll help with keeping things up to date and up to speed if it's just asked again or pointed out. Im actually fairly poor at keepin track of questions I've been asked if theyre not in front of me, and often times I'll go back and see a question and think " well I posted a few times after this and I know I answered A and C so I probably answered B somewhere.
EWP that's a second person plural. There really needs to be a better word for that. And no not y'all.
Yay kill-joy skipped over the one point that really mattered.
I'll reiterate it. You can argue that your question had merit, or you can argue you didn't care enough to check IB's past games. You cannot argue both; one has you caring, the other doesn't.
You say my case has gotten bogged down (or implied it anyway), and you're right. I offer the one clear note in the cacophony I've posted:
You insisted IB was scummy for something, repeatedly, without checking into the explanation you explicitly asked for.
Also is anyone else tired of ae's suicidal plans? I almost want to hang him on principle.
My question is essentially this: How do you go from not having actionable reads, then in the next post two hours later, you add on with the word "also" the thought of ae's suicide plan.
It's your wording that I'm not a fan of.
Like, when someone says "I like pie. Also, I think we should go get some" It feels like someone is making a statement, then as an afterthought, connected to the first statement, wants to get some.
So when you say "I have no actionable reads. Also, I want to lynch AE on principle", so you see why I'm asking you to explain this?
Also, in the post where I said you didn't answer my questions, I included more questions for you. In the B) section of my response. Answer those too, if you could.
Not really, no. You say enough people hadn't posted, so why were you weighing town vs. scum at that point? You outline your scumhunting method and then go on to explain how you didn't use it.
I always weigh town vs. scum. It's a lot harder when less have posted, but still doable. There just wasn't enough to be as confident as I would prefer to be. So, I was using 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.
I disagree with your assessment. That's not what I'm doing in the post in question.
Xyre said I have X attribute. I think X has a, b, c qualities. I do not think I have those qualities , so I disagree. He continues to say I do. So I respond with "define what you think X is" because it's possible that some of a, b, or c does not fit in his definition of X. That was my thought process.
Isn't this precisely what I said?
Ohhhhh. I see what you're saying.
I just wanted to make sure Xyre wasn't barking up the wrong tree. I didn't wanna get bogged down in yet another argument where I'm explaining how something that's attributed to me is not true. I have enough of those already.
Panicky much? All I did was respond to your comment. You know now because I told you.
So, what you're saying is, that in the middle of this Mafia game, you asked a question that contains a commonly used Mafia term, and someone is supposed to come to the conclusion that you were referring to out of game fishing. We're supposed to come to this conclusion, despite the fact that there's syntax in place for asking out of game questions?
So you're saying that because he can't prove (your word!) that you were thinking in a certain way, he can't use his suspicion that you did so in an argument? I... but... if this is the case, how do we play this game?
He can use whatever he wants in an argument. He can use "Your mom" in an argument if he wants. But the lack of proveability would certainly have an effect on the strength of his argument.
I'm suggesting his argument is being influenced heavily by personal bias instead of logic.
I really did already explain this. But here it goes again.
So, I asked IB the reason behind his self vote THIS GAME as oppossed to other games he may have done it because the reason behind it could have bearing on alignment, as I explained earlier. Due to the fact that I was only interested in his reasoning for doing it THIS GAME I had no reason to persue other games reasonings.
There is a world of difference between a judgment about your behavior and a data-centric, provable statement about IB's voting history.
I specifically cited that I recalled Manders saying something about that in Amnesia. It would be in that thread, and provable that it's there, no? It requires no judgement.
I want you to tell me why I feel like those people aren't/weren't reading.
You and I aren't having the same debate, mate. I'm highlighting it as another example of the "people don't understand me" routine
Here's a hint. If most people in the game don't understand your arguments, THEY AREN'T GOOD ARGUMENTS, your belief to the contrary notwithstanding. And the fact that you keep falling back on them bothers me.
No, if people aren't understanding my arguments, it's more likely I'm not explaining myself as well as I need to. Taking lines of thought for granted that others will follow, etc.
You! You're splitting hairs. You're drawing a trite distinction between two words used to express the general sentiment of "shiftiness" to sidestep the greater issue, which is that many of us think your posts were shifty. And when you say "I wasn't being shifty, people don't understand me" -
I didn't say I'm not being shifty because people don't understand me. I said I'm not being jittery. But that's not important.
I'm not sidestepping anything. I'm just trying to explain myself.
- well, put it to you this way. You know who uses that argument? "People don't understand me?" You know how accurate that claim is? Unless you're a Nazi sleeper agent or something, NEVER NEVER NEVER.
How would you feel if you made an argument and people are coming back at you with things that weren't your argument? That shows that people aren't getting it.
Well, duh, but my point was it should have been clear Nyxu's just a silly person, not a scum, so only a scum would think it reasonable to jump on Nyxu to try to kick-start a wagon.
Obviously, that point is holding less water now with infectiousbaloth. But I still think your intentions in making that post are still important, and still negative. You have an incentive to find an alternative wagon; you found that alternative wagon in a dodgy place; and you pulled the scum move of trying to passively start that wagon.
Where's my reasoning flawed there?
Where's the flaw? Well, first of all, it's absolutely not clear that Nyxu is just being silly. Therefore the line of logic that I'm scum for being suspicious of him holds no water whatsoever.
And as for me having incentive for finding an alternate wagon, I'm town. Knowing that, and knowing my lynch does no good for the town, of course I want to lynch someone who isn't me. That is absolutely not a scum thing.
Yay kill-joy skipped over the one point that really mattered.
I'll reiterate it. You can argue that your question had merit, or you can argue you didn't care enough to check IB's past games. You cannot argue both; one has you caring, the other doesn't.
You say my case has gotten bogged down (or implied it anyway), and you're right. I offer the one clear note in the cacophony I've posted:
You insisted IB was scummy for something, repeatedly, without checking into the explanation you explicitly asked for.
Because the explanation I wanted didn't require other games. The explanation was of reasoning specific to THIS GAME. Like I've been saying.
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.
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.
Ugh. Okay, so I'm reading the last couple of pages and see
- AE vs Nyxu
- Xyre and kill-joy arguing about language
- Wheat pushing against kill-joy and towning it up
- RL suddenly appears and adds some content but his posts are really hard to understand
- Storyteller also is not making sense to me
- IB is generating WIFOM with his post that talks about him and k-j
- KK is standing by and analyzing things
- Nis and Kosakosa are not doing anything
Ugh, wish I was keeping up with the thread better. I feel like AE is basically bad town. He 's like in Zodiac where's he going after people for bad reasons and generally mucks up the thread. If he's town then he will be in lylo for sure if we don't lynch him first.
I really dislike the kill-joy and RL walls. Both make me confused.
B) Can you explain the first half of this? The wording confuses me. As to the second, since you claim I have "mudslinging tactics", that implies I've been doing something more than once that qualifies as that. Can you back up your claim?
My question is essentially this: How do you go from not having actionable reads, then in the next post two hours later, you add on with the word "also" the thought of ae's suicide plan.
It's your wording that I'm not a fan of.
Like, when someone says "I like pie. Also, I think we should go get some" It feels like someone is making a statement, then as an afterthought, connected to the first statement, wants to get some.
So when you say "I have no actionable reads. Also, I want to lynch AE on principle", so you see why I'm asking you to explain this?
Also, in the post where I said you didn't answer my questions, I included more questions for you. In the B) section of my response. Answer those too, if you could.
Thank you kindly. We'll start by addressing Also.
I tend to use "Also" as a filler, so I expect to use it more. I've deleted more posts that started with "Also" than anything else (Usually when I write something, read over it, and decide that it accomplishes nothing for the thread.)
In this case, KJ, I had no actionable Town/ Scum reads. "Actionable" meaning Vote or the dreaded FoS or what have you. I then went and read over the posts, realized AE's gambit was worth mentioning, and since there was no post responding to mine (and I don't clearly remember if I had refreshed the page to see KK's post, so it very well could have not been visible to me), I opened my post with also to identify it as an afterthought. Wierd conversational shenanigans but if all you have is semantics on me (my use of also) I'm just going to come right out and say I feel like I'm having to put entirely too much effort into explaining myself to you. If I'd responded in two minutes you'd have a point but two hours with clear indication that I intended to read the thread should answer how I came to the conclusions I did. I didn't at the time find AE scummy, I found him completely useless to town in his gambit and potentially dangerous to reasoned discussion . See also my "principle"
That's not a read. That's a personal opinion. His reactions drew attention to him afterwards.
On to the first half of my quotes in this post. And since I'm doing extra work to hunt down information, let's just go crazy with Timelines. All times Eastern. 11/21 6:09 PM Post 149. Post by KJ. (Relevance: Time between posts) 10:59 AM, 12:45 PM: I make my "offending" posts.
[NO POSTS BY KJ.] 11/24 2:23 PM I indicate intention to join the KJ wagon. Post 173 11/24 4:59 AM KJ posts, drawing link between my "offending" posts. post 174. 5:02 AM: KJ Has somehow read 20 posts, formulated an opinion, and implied heavily that I had intended to join a wagon blindly.
There is a correlation here with my announced suspicion of KJ and his attempts to draw fire onto me.
12:20PM I respond with post 178. 1:05 PM I add post 180, which calls into question KJ's motives. 1:10 PM Post 181, KJ prioritizes responding to me over answering questions he had previously promised answers to. He had also said "I have to be up for work in 4 hours" at 5:02 AM. That's, what? 2 AM Newark? Which means that you posted #181 at 10:10.
You say you have to be up for work at six, which means a likely departure time around seven. CA has average commute times of 26.5 minutes according to About.com. So you get to your place of business at or around 7:30. I'm extrapolating quite a bit here, not knowing where you work / live (And I don't intend to find out for a mafia game on the internet) I can't piece together much more than that you were on the clock for a little over two hours when you posted this. Your other posts tend to occur no earlier than what I assume to be your lunch break (3-4PM Eastern). You break this pattern for the following posts:
Post # 25 1:49 PM(Using the godawful isthatso emote at that. I hear it's a scumtell to some people)
Post # 39 12:48 PM (Unvoting for RVS. Defending IB's selfvote as "not outright scummy" AND the "trolling" semantics issue) In fact he brings up IB three different times in one post. Wowza.
Post # 181 1:10 PM (See above).
Timestamps are tech.
"Quick to come to bear" meaning you rapidly divert quite a bit of attention (to the exclusion of other things) to putting pressure on those that outright state suspicion. "come to bear" is an idiom.
"More or less mudslinging" insofar as quite a bit of what you did was try to paint me with suspicion rather than addressing my suspicions of you. If I were to be discredited, then my questioning of you would bear less weight. This is a form of negative campaigning or Mudslinging.
Will that suffice? I think it's quite the bucket of information. unvote, vote Kill-Joy
So, what you're saying is, that in the middle of this Mafia game, you asked a question that contains a commonly used Mafia term, and someone is supposed to come to the conclusion that you were referring to out of game fishing. We're supposed to come to this conclusion, despite the fact that there's syntax in place for asking out of game questions?
I don't know who you're having a conversation with but I don't feel like it's me. I just told you that the only way for you to know that was for me to tell you. I didn't make a judgment when you asked initially. I just explained why it wasn't what you thought.
Fishing question was to ask if you knew trolling was a fishing term. WG pre-empted me so I dropped it.
It does not mean fishing for info here. Unless I'm mistaking. If your searching for info or reactions thats fishing. When your hounding someone posting after they post or constantly ribbing them in your posts. Thats trolling, no? Which is why I think of it in a negative light.
I'm going to look over the thread from the start. Gut tells me if KJ is scum, Raging Levine is his bud. If not then look into Proph/storyteller.
No, if people aren't understanding my arguments, it's more likely I'm not explaining myself as well as I need to. Taking lines of thought for granted that others will follow, etc.
If that's true, I'm keen on hearing the clearer explanation.
Quote from kill-joy »
I didn't say I'm not being shifty because people don't understand me. I said I'm not being jittery. But that's not important.
I'm not sidestepping anything. I'm just trying to explain myself.
You're explaining yourself in a manner not conducive to understanding.
Let's scrap the adjectives and cut to the matter. I say those posts read like the overreactions of a scum. Agree or disagree, and why/why not?
Quote from kill-joy »
Where's the flaw? Well, first of all, it's absolutely not clear that Nyxu is just being silly.
In retrospect, silly's the wrong word - maybe "facetious" is a bit more clear. That sentence has no conviction whatsoever. It's like someone saying, "man, if that guy cuts me off, I'm going to ****ing kill him."
But the point remains: characterizing that as a genuine statement of suspicion is ridiculous.
Quote from kill-joy »
And as for me having incentive for finding an alternate wagon, I'm town. Knowing that, and knowing my lynch does no good for the town, of course I want to lynch someone who isn't me. That is absolutely not a scum thing.
Fake WIFOM. Townies, knowing they're innocent, defend themselves first and foremost; scum, knowing the suspicion on them is valid, vacillate and find scapegoats. You've done the latter.
Yes, townies want to lynch scum, but that post's "scumhunting" was very convenient; you halfheartedly pointed out some small seeming suspicion (without a vote or any indication of interest beyond the point itself, indicating to me the halfheartedness of the whole matter) and put it on a hook for someone to bite at and shift attention off you.
Fishing question was to ask if you knew trolling was a fishing term. WG pre-empted me so I dropped it.
It does not mean fishing for info here. Unless I'm mistaking. If your searching for info or reactions thats fishing. When your hounding someone posting after they post or constantly ribbing them in your posts. Thats trolling, no? Which is why I think of it in a negative light.
I'm going to look over the thread from the start. Gut tells me if KJ is scum, Raging Levine is his bud. If not then look into Proph/storyteller.
We're only getting bogged down by examining the finer points of trolling.
His back and forth between self aware joking "Whoa, why am I lurking again?" and serious commentary (recent post re: RL) puts me on edge. Not scummy, but not townie either.
Related: I'm afraid AE might be to this game what Shalako was to Animaniacs (except mafia instead of SK, obviously)
Why.
Nyxu: His attempt to change the momentum of the game read as opportunistic to me.
k-j: Despite constant pressure, he responds in a relatively level-headed way and still participates in a meaningful way.
AE: He's been guiding the town, has been generally seen as townie, but in such a way that he could easily be scum leading the town to a series of mislynches. His "name-list" proposition for lynches being a gambit to make him appear townie.
His back and forth between self aware joking "Whoa, why am I lurking again?" and serious commentary (recent post re: RL) puts me on edge. Not scummy, but not townie either.
So your on the fence with him then.
AE: He's been guiding the town, has been generally seen as townie, but in such a way that he could easily be scum leading the town to a series of mislynches.
Let me quote something kpaca said sometime ago...
Originally Posted by kpaca A_E is well known for really not even having a town mind set ever.
It keeps the scum off my back for the most part.
But no, not myslinches.
His "name-list" proposition for lynches being a gambit to make him appear townie.
No it had nothing to do with me looking townie. Just to show how easy it would be for us to win. As long as scum were not on the end.
Also, ae, your key error is that all scum would have to do is not be in the first five. They could randomly kill anyone not part of that initial group and win. Please for the love of sanity drop your horrible plan.
Also, ae, your key error is that all scum would have to do is not be in the first five. They could randomly kill anyone not part of that initial group and win. Please for the love of sanity drop your horrible plan.
[KJ's last post. 5:38 (2:38 Newark) PM Wednesday the 28th of November, 2012]
I grow tired of these delays. I've been burned by stall tactics before and will not tolerate them again.
I submit that K-J is willfully delaying his posts under the basis of the mounting suspicions against him, the lack of a V/LA, and his prior posting habits.
Weekends are just bad for me. I always work, and most days I only get home in time to go to bed and go to work again. I work in a grocery store, and I open.
And it's not like the questions posed to me are just things I can answer in 5 minutes. They're kinda in depth.
So, I'm dropping by here to say that for the next 24ish hours, I will either be at work or otherwise not at home, then after that I will have enough time to sit down and answer stuff. That was my plan. Actually I planned to do it this morning but there was kinda an emergency and we needed to get sandbags to prevent flooding and such. But I'm getting off topic.
I'll be back Sunday morning early (12-1am prolly). If you don't wanna wait, that's fine. Hopefully my wagon has helped the town catch scum. If you do wanna wait, there will be content. Ok? Now I'm gonna go to bed as I have to be up at 6:30 so I can go to work.
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.
Kj: I can wait so long as content promised is delivered
Ib: you mean the things I've been answering questions about for a while? How is it opportunistic to act on ones suspicions? How does any change in momentum in this game that I may have caused not beneficial to town? If you are going to vote me on the basis of some change I've caused, you need to be able to identify the change and identify how, if at all, it harms the town. So what momentum was there before my posts and was it beneficial to the town, and how did I allegedly change this momentum, and did this change if it happened at all effect the game ?
Votes:
Wheat Grinder 1 (MandersHex)
Kill Joy 3 (Wheat_Grinder,Xyre, Raging Levine)
Archmage Eternal 1 (Nyxu)
Nyxu 1 (Infectious Baloth)
Raging Levine 1 (KoolKoal)
Not Voting 5 (Archmage Eternal, Nis, Kill-Joy, Storyteller, and Prophylaxis)
With 12 alive, it is 7 to lynch (or no lynch)
Deadline is set for December 14th Noon EST.
(If there are many mistakes with this VC or any of the future ones, please notify me via PM)
Thanks for splitting THAT particular hair.
And since both definitions above depict behaviors I'd consider suspicious in this game, I'm wondering why you're so keen on said hair-splitting.
It's also particularly curious that he accuses multiple people - in the same post - of not reading.
Oh look, infectiousbaloth's intervening to save his scumbuddy. That's nice.
(Before someone asks me "why?", I think Nyxu overreacted to AE, but overreacted like a townie; KJ's overlooking this to try to swerve attention onto Nyxu, but doesn't vote for it, in 174; and IB "leap-frogs" KJ's post to place a real vote to reinforce the fake suspicion.)
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
A) You never answered my question.
B) Can you explain the first half of this? The wording confuses me. As to the second, since you claim I have "mudslinging tactics", that implies I've been doing something more than once that qualifies as that. Can you back up your claim?
I see what you're saying.
It has to do with my method of finding scum. When enough people have posted, I weigh who I think is town vs. who I think is scum. At that point, there was almost no participation, but the person I saw that was the scummiest given the information I had was Prophy.
My certainty wasn't very high due to the lack of participation, and the odds that the two scum were still not in the game yet was high, but out of the people who were talking, only Prophy was acting scummy enough to make me look into him.
Does that make sense?
Any alignment? And why?
I disagree with your assessment. That's not what I'm doing in the post in question.
Xyre said I have X attribute. I think X has a, b, c qualities. I do not think I have those qualities , so I disagree. He continues to say I do. So I respond with "define what you think X is" because it's possible that some of a, b, or c does not fit in his definition of X. That was my thought process.
It's in the middle of a game with no indication that it's in reference to OOG. How am I supposed to know that?
So, you didn't think the way I defended myself before was scummy, but now do since your original argument is invalid?
Also can you explain your suspicion of me instead of some vague "how he defended himself is scummy" phrase?
The question DID have value. I asked to see his reasoning for it THIS GAME. If his answer was as simple as just " I do it every game" with no other reasoning, I could have extrapolated that he was doing it this game BECAUSE he does it every game, which could well be forced. That has bearing on his alignment.
However, his answer was that he does it to introduce himself. That has no relevence to any gamestate he does it in, nor is dependent on any role he may have, nor requires a specific mindset. Therefore, I got nothing out of his answer. But the question DID have value when I asked it, dependent entirely on his answer.
But there is absolutely no way to prove that mindset, so I don't see how it can be part of any logical argument you could make. That's what boggles me, is that you're saying these things but have no logical basis with which to draw those conclusions. You seem to just be basically taking the scummier of two possibilities and attributing it to me at every turn.
See above. That should answer this.
If you expect me to look up IB's voting history, then it's not unreasonable for when someone says I'm jittery, and I refute it by saying I don't get jittery, I can expect that people will check that. It's the same thing as what you're saying I should have done.
That makes a world of sense.
Like I said above to RL, you said I had an attribute, of which I was sure you were wrong. I wanted to make sure of what I was being accused of.
I want you to tell me why I feel like those people aren't/weren't reading.
Hint: It's ITT.
And what does splitting hairs have to do with anything?
At the bolded: You say I'm overlooking the towniness of Nyxu's overreaction to swerve attention onto Nyxu. If I'm scum, wouldn't I already know he's town, ergo removing the need to overlook towniness?
How does that make sense?
Agreeing with K-j, even if K-j is scum, does not make me scum. I'm sure you can agree with this statement.
However, for the sake of argument, let's assume that K-j and I are both scum, as you imagine in your scenario, shall we?
We know there are two scum.
In Xyre-land, the two scum are Kill-joy and InfectiousBaloth.
What can be gained by tying myself to K-j? Knowing that there are ONLY two scum, and there are no PRs?
K-j seems like he could reasonably be mafia, and has enough pressure on him that any minor slip-up could very easily lead to his demise.
By putting myself in front of him, assuming that I am his scumbuddy, I risk being lynched myself, and having him lynched in short order the following day. This completely botches the game.
I like k-j's point against nyxu and my best way to pressure nyxu is to vote for him. That doesn't make k-j scum, nor does it make me his scumbuddy. That being said, I'm a bit surprised that you, of all players, would make that jump in logic.
Tired of corporate corruption ruining your favorite MtG site?
Come join ours!!
We even have Mafia!!
Not really, no. You say enough people hadn't posted, so why were you weighing town vs. scum at that point? You outline your scumhunting method and then go on to explain how you didn't use it.
Bolding added. Read what you quote.
Isn't this precisely what I said?
Panicky much? All I did was respond to your comment. You know now because I told you.
In what way does it have bearing on his alignment?
How is this different from "I do it every game?"
So you're saying that because he can't prove (your word!) that you were thinking in a certain way, he can't use his suspicion that you did so in an argument? I... but... if this is the case, how do we play this game?
It should? How?
There is a world of difference between a judgment about your behavior and a data-centric, provable statement about IB's voting history.
You and I aren't having the same debate, mate. I'm highlighting it as another example of the "people don't understand me" routine
Here's a hint. If most people in the game don't understand your arguments, THEY AREN'T GOOD ARGUMENTS, your belief to the contrary notwithstanding. And the fact that you keep falling back on them bothers me.
You! You're splitting hairs. You're drawing a trite distinction between two words used to express the general sentiment of "shiftiness" to sidestep the greater issue, which is that many of us think your posts were shifty. And when you say "I wasn't being shifty, people don't understand me" -
- well, put it to you this way. You know who uses that argument? "People don't understand me?" You know how accurate that claim is? Unless you're a Nazi sleeper agent or something, NEVER NEVER NEVER.
Well, duh, but my point was it should have been clear Nyxu's just a silly person, not a scum, so only a scum would think it reasonable to jump on Nyxu to try to kick-start a wagon.
Obviously, that point is holding less water now with infectiousbaloth. But I still think your intentions in making that post are still important, and still negative. You have an incentive to find an alternative wagon; you found that alternative wagon in a dodgy place; and you pulled the scum move of trying to passively start that wagon.
Where's my reasoning flawed there?
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
It's not a jump in logic, it's a reasoned point (if I take you as wise enough to not take things a player you suspect, or for that matter any player, at face value). But the number of qualifiers in that last paragraph gives me pause. The intervention-on-KJ's-behalf was a relatively low-risk scenario, notwithstanding your contrary characterizations, but I don't see a scumbuddy employing quite this much distancing after being called out by one person. Fair enough.
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 don't you compare these posts? Show us what your talking about. You obviously have an idea as you voted, so make the case.
So did the fishing question have any bearing on the game? Or do you just want me to take you sometime?
They hate us cause they ain't us.
They hate us cause they ain't us.
Studying for an exam. Not likely to happen until Friday at earliest.
Fishing question was to ask if you knew trolling was a fishing term. WG pre-empted me so I dropped it.
Noted and PM for replacements sent.
Hope things work out / you get some more free time in the near future (especially with Christmas/New Years coming up in a month).
Unrelated: I am going on vacation this next week, but I should have internet access / be able to check the game. If somehow I dont, I promise there will be a votecount on Friday, and another at the very latest next Friday. Again, thats the worst case / I dont have internet scenario.
Ah. Sorry. Kj in that one but as an open statement if you feel I've missed a question of yours itll help with keeping things up to date and up to speed if it's just asked again or pointed out. Im actually fairly poor at keepin track of questions I've been asked if theyre not in front of me, and often times I'll go back and see a question and think " well I posted a few times after this and I know I answered A and C so I probably answered B somewhere.
EWP that's a second person plural. There really needs to be a better word for that. And no not y'all.
I'll reiterate it. You can argue that your question had merit, or you can argue you didn't care enough to check IB's past games. You cannot argue both; one has you caring, the other doesn't.
You say my case has gotten bogged down (or implied it anyway), and you're right. I offer the one clear note in the cacophony I've posted:
You insisted IB was scummy for something, repeatedly, without checking into the explanation you explicitly asked for.
They hate us cause they ain't us.
Welcome to the game
My question is essentially this: How do you go from not having actionable reads, then in the next post two hours later, you add on with the word "also" the thought of ae's suicide plan.
It's your wording that I'm not a fan of.
Like, when someone says "I like pie. Also, I think we should go get some" It feels like someone is making a statement, then as an afterthought, connected to the first statement, wants to get some.
So when you say "I have no actionable reads. Also, I want to lynch AE on principle", so you see why I'm asking you to explain this?
Also, in the post where I said you didn't answer my questions, I included more questions for you. In the B) section of my response. Answer those too, if you could.
I always weigh town vs. scum. It's a lot harder when less have posted, but still doable. There just wasn't enough to be as confident as I would prefer to be. So, I was using it.
Ohhhhh. I see what you're saying.
I just wanted to make sure Xyre wasn't barking up the wrong tree. I didn't wanna get bogged down in yet another argument where I'm explaining how something that's attributed to me is not true. I have enough of those already.
So, what you're saying is, that in the middle of this Mafia game, you asked a question that contains a commonly used Mafia term, and someone is supposed to come to the conclusion that you were referring to out of game fishing. We're supposed to come to this conclusion, despite the fact that there's syntax in place for asking out of game questions?
Depends on the answer. I already answered this.
I do it every game is not a reason, it's a statement of frequency.
He can use whatever he wants in an argument. He can use "Your mom" in an argument if he wants. But the lack of proveability would certainly have an effect on the strength of his argument.
I'm suggesting his argument is being influenced heavily by personal bias instead of logic.
I really did already explain this. But here it goes again.
So, I asked IB the reason behind his self vote THIS GAME as oppossed to other games he may have done it because the reason behind it could have bearing on alignment, as I explained earlier. Due to the fact that I was only interested in his reasoning for doing it THIS GAME I had no reason to persue other games reasonings.
I specifically cited that I recalled Manders saying something about that in Amnesia. It would be in that thread, and provable that it's there, no? It requires no judgement.
No, if people aren't understanding my arguments, it's more likely I'm not explaining myself as well as I need to. Taking lines of thought for granted that others will follow, etc.
I didn't say I'm not being shifty because people don't understand me. I said I'm not being jittery. But that's not important.
I'm not sidestepping anything. I'm just trying to explain myself.
How would you feel if you made an argument and people are coming back at you with things that weren't your argument? That shows that people aren't getting it.
Where's the flaw? Well, first of all, it's absolutely not clear that Nyxu is just being silly. Therefore the line of logic that I'm scum for being suspicious of him holds no water whatsoever.
And as for me having incentive for finding an alternate wagon, I'm town. Knowing that, and knowing my lynch does no good for the town, of course I want to lynch someone who isn't me. That is absolutely not a scum thing.
Because the explanation I wanted didn't require other games. The explanation was of reasoning specific to THIS GAME. Like I've been saying.
- AE vs Nyxu
- Xyre and kill-joy arguing about language
- Wheat pushing against kill-joy and towning it up
- RL suddenly appears and adds some content but his posts are really hard to understand
- Storyteller also is not making sense to me
- IB is generating WIFOM with his post that talks about him and k-j
- KK is standing by and analyzing things
- Nis and Kosakosa are not doing anything
Ugh, wish I was keeping up with the thread better. I feel like AE is basically bad town. He 's like in Zodiac where's he going after people for bad reasons and generally mucks up the thread. If he's town then he will be in lylo for sure if we don't lynch him first.
I really dislike the kill-joy and RL walls. Both make me confused.
Thank you kindly. We'll start by addressing Also.
I tend to use "Also" as a filler, so I expect to use it more. I've deleted more posts that started with "Also" than anything else (Usually when I write something, read over it, and decide that it accomplishes nothing for the thread.)
In this case, KJ, I had no actionable Town/ Scum reads. "Actionable" meaning Vote or the dreaded FoS or what have you. I then went and read over the posts, realized AE's gambit was worth mentioning, and since there was no post responding to mine (and I don't clearly remember if I had refreshed the page to see KK's post, so it very well could have not been visible to me), I opened my post with also to identify it as an afterthought. Wierd conversational shenanigans but if all you have is semantics on me (my use of also) I'm just going to come right out and say I feel like I'm having to put entirely too much effort into explaining myself to you. If I'd responded in two minutes you'd have a point but two hours with clear indication that I intended to read the thread should answer how I came to the conclusions I did. I didn't at the time find AE scummy, I found him completely useless to town in his gambit and potentially dangerous to reasoned discussion . See also my "principle"
That's not a read. That's a personal opinion. His reactions drew attention to him afterwards.
On to the first half of my quotes in this post. And since I'm doing extra work to hunt down information, let's just go crazy with Timelines. All times Eastern.
11/21 6:09 PM Post 149. Post by KJ. (Relevance: Time between posts)
10:59 AM, 12:45 PM: I make my "offending" posts.
[NO POSTS BY KJ.]
11/24 2:23 PM I indicate intention to join the KJ wagon. Post 173
11/24 4:59 AM KJ posts, drawing link between my "offending" posts. post 174.
5:02 AM: KJ Has somehow read 20 posts, formulated an opinion, and implied heavily that I had intended to join a wagon blindly.
There is a correlation here with my announced suspicion of KJ and his attempts to draw fire onto me.
12:20PM I respond with post 178.
1:05 PM I add post 180, which calls into question KJ's motives.
1:10 PM Post 181, KJ prioritizes responding to me over answering questions he had previously promised answers to. He had also said "I have to be up for work in 4 hours" at 5:02 AM. That's, what? 2 AM Newark? Which means that you posted #181 at 10:10.
Post # 25 1:49 PM(Using the godawful isthatso emote at that. I hear it's a scumtell to some people)
Post # 39 12:48 PM (Unvoting for RVS. Defending IB's selfvote as "not outright scummy" AND the "trolling" semantics issue) In fact he brings up IB three different times in one post. Wowza.
Post # 181 1:10 PM (See above).
"Quick to come to bear" meaning you rapidly divert quite a bit of attention (to the exclusion of other things) to putting pressure on those that outright state suspicion. "come to bear" is an idiom.
"More or less mudslinging" insofar as quite a bit of what you did was try to paint me with suspicion rather than addressing my suspicions of you. If I were to be discredited, then my questioning of you would bear less weight. This is a form of negative campaigning or Mudslinging.
Will that suffice? I think it's quite the bucket of information.
unvote, vote Kill-Joy
I don't know who you're having a conversation with but I don't feel like it's me. I just told you that the only way for you to know that was for me to tell you. I didn't make a judgment when you asked initially. I just explained why it wasn't what you thought.
Jittery much?
Confirm vote.
Unvote
It does not mean fishing for info here. Unless I'm mistaking. If your searching for info or reactions thats fishing. When your hounding someone posting after they post or constantly ribbing them in your posts. Thats trolling, no? Which is why I think of it in a negative light.
I'm going to look over the thread from the start. Gut tells me if KJ is scum, Raging Levine is his bud. If not then look into Proph/storyteller.
They hate us cause they ain't us.
If that's true, I'm keen on hearing the clearer explanation.
You're explaining yourself in a manner not conducive to understanding.
Let's scrap the adjectives and cut to the matter. I say those posts read like the overreactions of a scum. Agree or disagree, and why/why not?
In retrospect, silly's the wrong word - maybe "facetious" is a bit more clear. That sentence has no conviction whatsoever. It's like someone saying, "man, if that guy cuts me off, I'm going to ****ing kill him."
But the point remains: characterizing that as a genuine statement of suspicion is ridiculous.
Fake WIFOM. Townies, knowing they're innocent, defend themselves first and foremost; scum, knowing the suspicion on them is valid, vacillate and find scapegoats. You've done the latter.
Yes, townies want to lynch scum, but that post's "scumhunting" was very convenient; you halfheartedly pointed out some small seeming suspicion (without a vote or any indication of interest beyond the point itself, indicating to me the halfheartedness of the whole matter) and put it on a hook for someone to bite at and shift attention off you.
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
We're only getting bogged down by examining the finer points of trolling.
I still don't like nyxu.
k-j reads townie to me.
This.
This is my contribution.
Related: I'm afraid AE might be to this game what Shalako was to Animaniacs (except mafia instead of SK, obviously)
Really? The threads been so active as of late, and all those posts are debating the meaning of trolling in mafia right?
@IB. What are your thoughts on Proph?
They hate us cause they ain't us.
Why.
Why.
Why.
His back and forth between self aware joking "Whoa, why am I lurking again?" and serious commentary (recent post re: RL) puts me on edge. Not scummy, but not townie either.
Nyxu: His attempt to change the momentum of the game read as opportunistic to me.
k-j: Despite constant pressure, he responds in a relatively level-headed way and still participates in a meaningful way.
AE: He's been guiding the town, has been generally seen as townie, but in such a way that he could easily be scum leading the town to a series of mislynches. His "name-list" proposition for lynches being a gambit to make him appear townie.
I am in a rigorous MBA program. My amounts of free time and spare brainpower fluctuate.
Touche'
So your on the fence with him then.
Let me quote something kpaca said sometime ago...
It keeps the scum off my back for the most part.
But no, not myslinches.
No it had nothing to do with me looking townie. Just to show how easy it would be for us to win. As long as scum were not on the end.
They hate us cause they ain't us.
How is it opportunistic? If he's trying to change the momentum that'd be going against the grain. How is that opportunistic?
My biggest thing is he has his vote on KJ then agrees with him and votes you.
Shhhhh. I'm trying to drop it.
They hate us cause they ain't us.
I will look at it this weekend if I get the chance.
Votes:
Kill Joy 4 (Wheat_Grinder,Xyre, Raging Levine, and Nyxu)
Nyxu 1 (Infectious Baloth)
Raging Levine 1 (KoolKoal)
Not Voting 6 (Archmage Eternal, Nis, Kill-Joy, Storyteller, Prophylaxis, and Kosakosa)
With 12 alive, it is 7 to lynch (or no lynch)
Deadline is set for December 14th Noon EST.
(If there are many mistakes with this VC or any of the future ones, please notify me via PM)
I grow tired of these delays. I've been burned by stall tactics before and will not tolerate them again.
I submit that K-J is willfully delaying his posts under the basis of the mounting suspicions against him, the lack of a V/LA, and his prior posting habits.
And it's not like the questions posed to me are just things I can answer in 5 minutes. They're kinda in depth.
So, I'm dropping by here to say that for the next 24ish hours, I will either be at work or otherwise not at home, then after that I will have enough time to sit down and answer stuff. That was my plan. Actually I planned to do it this morning but there was kinda an emergency and we needed to get sandbags to prevent flooding and such. But I'm getting off topic.
I'll be back Sunday morning early (12-1am prolly). If you don't wanna wait, that's fine. Hopefully my wagon has helped the town catch scum. If you do wanna wait, there will be content. Ok? Now I'm gonna go to bed as I have to be up at 6:30 so I can go to work.
@k-j: Why didn't you vote nyxu when you raised the point about him bandwagoning?
@AE: Yes, I am on the fence with Proph.
Ib: you mean the things I've been answering questions about for a while? How is it opportunistic to act on ones suspicions? How does any change in momentum in this game that I may have caused not beneficial to town? If you are going to vote me on the basis of some change I've caused, you need to be able to identify the change and identify how, if at all, it harms the town. So what momentum was there before my posts and was it beneficial to the town, and how did I allegedly change this momentum, and did this change if it happened at all effect the game ?
They hate us cause they ain't us.