I think the evidence against Xyre is stronger than Caex, unless you're referencing some meta I'm unaware of. I think Caex was unintentionally using fallacious logic, so I'm comfortable hearing more from him until I can discern the motive. Xyre on the other hand is much more promising.
Can you make a case on him? Not a PBPA as I think they are a waste of time, but some bulletpoints would be nice.
Because to me is the opposite, I think Caex is purposely using bad logic, trying to create mountains of molehills on random people. Xyre on the other hand is just being an idiot, but that can be explained because he's cocky. Aren't you sure you are being blinded by a natural OMGUS knee-jerk reaction?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The game is not being dumbed down. Control is doing fine; Draw-Go is not the only kind of control. Aggro is doing fine; Red Deck Wins is not the only kind of aggro. Creature combat is an important core concept and belongs in every color. Mythic rarity is not destroying the game. People whine too much for no good reason. Magic is more popular than ever, so keep calm, brew some decks and play some damn cards.
I'll be along sometime in the relatively near future to get started in this game.
Holy hell, I had to check the most recent VC to make sure you didn't just wonder in off the street. To be fair though, zindabad's meta is generally lurky.
I think the evidence against Xyre is stronger than Caex, unless you're referencing some meta I'm unaware of. I think Caex was unintentionally using fallacious logic, so I'm comfortable hearing more from him until I can discern the motive. Xyre on the other hand is much more promising.
Can you make a case on him? Not a PBPA as I think they are a waste of time, but some bulletpoints would be nice.
Because to me is the opposite, I think Caex is purposely using bad logic, trying to create mountains of molehills on random people. Xyre on the other hand is just being an idiot, but that can be explained because he's cocky. Aren't you sure you are being blinded by a natural OMGUS knee-jerk reaction?
I generally define OMGUS as reactionary votes with no logical substance. My suspicions however come from flaws in Xyre's logic, particularly the false dilemma shown here:
I know Zionite is smart enough not to derive some great scum find from one post, particularly one as vague as CropCircles'. I'm not sure what his intention is in focusing on CC, exactly - maybe trying to undermine a case; maybe trying to find a new target; maybe just angry - but I don't see a town mindset in his vendetta.
The option he ignored, which was quite obvious to everyone else, that my CC vote was for pressure to coax some content out of him. He then uses this fallacy to conclude that I do not have a town mindset. He also says this:
As an aside, the post also has weird tone-deaf lines like "I know I'm town, so I have a unique perspective no one else has at this point. I'm also confident I will not be today's lynch." of which I have no idea what to make.
And immediately pushes for a claim. This reads as a scum curious to see what possible threats may be out there, and striking at the opportunity to get me to claim range despite simultaneouslyarguing that CC's vote was RANDOM. In which case, I would NOT be in claim range if CC had been present recently.
It's definitely better than any lead we have so far. Unvote CropCircles, Vote Xyre
I want this point against Xyre to be the forefront of the conversation, so I'll be spoilering my response to Wessel, as the quote is quite long.
@Wessel: I'm just wondering how you rectify agreeing with supposed scum. Seems like a contradiction in mindset. And I don't think you ever responded to my rebuttal to your reasoning. If you did, please point them out.
I don't think I really understand your point - are you saying I can't agree with a suspect on something that isn't really related? Who made the opening post of this thread? Can't we agree on that?
Secondly, some answers to your rebuttal:
Quote from Zionite »
1) As if Town never state the obvious.
2) I did ask for more depth, which has been ignored.
3) You are characterizing my question as weak with no justification.
4) I don't consider the post anti-town, so no I didn't vote.
1) It's not impossible. Still, it's something proportionally seen more often amongst scum because they are trying to seem active, usually by posting obvious observations.
2) Yea but I felt that question (if we're talking about the same thing, I'm talking about that last line in that post I voted you for) was a bit too much trying to seem like you're really actively involved in the game, posting a question to show that you're really investigating.
3) Let me justify my characterization of your question as weak. To me, it felt out of place, in the sense of how you formulated it, and because it wasn't the relevant question at that point. Regarding the formulation, it's the way you started it, saying 'So...', strengthening my view that you posted it more as an afterthought to show you really were scumhunting. And you asked what criteria DRey was looking for in giving his vote to the biggest wagon, while a more relevant question would have been something like 'Why are you posting this, at this point in time' or 'Are you serious or is this just RVS'.
4) Ok.
I feel that your suspect's suspects are very relevant to your eventual conclusion of alignment. You may not agree with the game being so early, but in general the targets of your target should be a factor taken into account in your read.
1)I agree posting the obvious is not a terrible tell to follow up on this early, but my point is that it isn't conclusive evidence of scum. I think another tell similar to this is posting irrelevant information about other games that can't be applicable to the current situation.
2)So maybe my question was misinterpreted as disingenuous. I can't really refute that in any way other than to restate that it was a serious inquiry, but that doesn't help you much. I was trying to get more content out of DRey to see where his motives are at, but since then there has been better reference points so I don't really need an answer anymore.
3)That's a pretty fair assessment. I'm concerned that the reasoning is couched in semantics, the use of "so...", because interpretation can vary on a platform like forum Mafia. But I see what you're getting at with your example questions.
I generally define OMGUS as reactionary votes with no logical substance. My suspicions however come from flaws in Xyre's logic,
Stop you right there to note that you're sidestepping what DRey's saying, i.e. that I'm suspicious of you because you OMGUSed CC. That's only tangentially related to your suspicions of me. You're not acknowledging the fact that you voted him because he voted for you (your disapproval of his reasoning notwithstanding).
Just because you can pull down a link to wikipedia doesn't mean you're using the flaw correctly. I was speculating as to your mindset after acknowledging I can't be sure. That's hardly a conclusive list, and thus creates no dilemmas, false or otherwise.
The option he ignored, which was quite obvious to everyone else, that my CC vote was for pressure to coax some content out of him. He then uses this fallacy to conclude that I do not have a town mindset.
Check out this sliming. In Zionite's view, I deliberately ignored something everyone but scumbag me recognized implicitly.
Here, let's make it easier. Show of hands - who assumed Zionite was trying to pressure CropCircles, who'd made one post with a random joke vote twenty posts into the game, to add more content to the game, rather than anything else?
This reads as a scum curious to see what possible threats may be out there, and striking at the opportunity to get me to claim range despite simultaneouslyarguing that CC's vote was RANDOM. In which case, I would NOT be in claim range if CC had been present recently.
1) So your logic is I'm making a passive scum play (seeing if anyone agrees with me about the weird logic in your post) and an aggressive scum play (putting you to L-2 and demanding a claim) simultaneously? You must think I'm a strategic idiot. Or, better answer, you're trying to throw slime on me to throw slime on my case on you.
If I'm smart enough to know that playing like I've played in Seasons and Ataghan is a good way to appear town, regardless of my alignment, then I'm also smart enough to not mix up my strategies. I wouldn't put both of those pieces in the post unless I believed in both of them (town) or felt like both served my strategic goals (scum), and the latter doesn't work because those two elements strategically clash.
Sit down. You're done.
2) I've already demonstrated I don't stand on tradition. I'm not asking you for a claim because you're at L-2, I'm asking you for a claim because I want a claim from you and figure you're more likely to comply when you're at L-2. You're free to not provide if you feel like splitting hairs about CC's absence.
It's definitely better than any lead we have so far. Unvote CropCircles, Vote Xyre
Makes that CropCircles vote sound really genuine, doesn't it?
I'll go assemble a full PBPA of Zionite to get this more organized.
You could be right. I've been thinking Xyre's scum for a while now. He's doing mainly observing and putting together some cases, but no questioning or investigating. I don't know 'townCaex' and my read on him isn't that good on him, but I'm happy to vote Xyre for his complete lack of active scumhunting.
Unvote, vote Xyre.
I'm biting my tongue really hard now to avoid swearing. Did you miss the part where I pointed to Zionite, DRey, and kpaca? Did you think I was just being facetious? I've been on their necks all game because right now I'm confident they're scum. What questions do you suggest I ask them?!
If anyone wants another trust tell, it's that I don't get this pissed off when I'm playing like scum. (See Ataghan for the most recent example.)
As for Caex, considering the last game we played together, I feel like I'm more comfortable calling him town than that last one. That game, I had a gut feeling he was scum, but I couldn't separate his inexperience from scum tells enough to point to that crucial scum mindset. (For those who weren't in Ataghan, Caex's big thing that game was doing exhaustive PBPAs, which served the side purpose of being generic enough that he looked like a new player rather than a scum hiding generic attitudes.) Unless he's had a confidence transfusion between then and now, I think he's more genuine this game, and thus trust him at the moment.
The option he ignored, which was quite obvious to everyone else, that my CC vote was for pressure to coax some content out of him. He then uses this fallacy to conclude that I do not have a town mindset.
Check out this sliming. In Zionite's view, I deliberately ignored something everyone but scumbag me recognized implicitly.
Here, let's make it easier. Show of hands - who assumed Zionite was trying to pressure CropCircles, who'd made one post with a random joke vote twenty posts into the game, to add more content to the game, rather than anything else?
* Stardust raises his hand.
At least, I did. He said as much in Post 102. But now that I look back, that doesn't jive with his actual vote... Zionite, why did you reply back with "my CC vote was for pressure to coax some content out of him" instead of "my CC vote was because I think he's scum"? Clearly you were reading that into your analysis of his jump onto your wagon. Why wasn't that your first thought when replying now?
Xyre, you say that Zionite's vote didn't have a town mindset. Does that necessarily mean it had a scum mindset? It felt like honest hunting to me at the time at least, though reading it again I may have just been fooled by the allure of Wagon Analysis™.
Point for later, I'm not a big fan of your self-meta there, but I'm looking forward to your additional analysis. Your case so far seems to be based exclusively on one post.
The option he ignored, which was quite obvious to everyone else, that my CC vote was for pressure to coax some content out of him. He then uses this fallacy to conclude that I do not have a town mindset.
Check out this sliming. In Zionite's view, I deliberately ignored something everyone but scumbag me recognized implicitly.
Here, let's make it easier. Show of hands - who assumed Zionite was trying to pressure CropCircles, who'd made one post with a random joke vote twenty posts into the game, to add more content to the game, rather than anything else?
* Stardust raises his hand.
At least, I did. He said as much in Post 102. But now that I look back, that doesn't jive with his actual vote... Zionite, why did you reply back with "my CC vote was for pressure to coax some content out of him" instead of "my CC vote was because I think he's scum"? Clearly you were reading that into your analysis of his jump onto your wagon. Why wasn't that your first thought when replying now?
Xyre, you say that Zionite's vote didn't have a town mindset. Does that necessarily mean it had a scum mindset? It felt like honest hunting to me at the time at least, though reading it again I may have just been fooled by the allure of Wagon Analysis™.
Point for later, I'm not a big fan of your self-meta there, but I'm looking forward to your additional analysis. Your case so far seems to be based exclusively on one post.
Thanks for the catch re: his motivations - I'm giving myself a break from Zionite before I go into it, because if history is any indicator my angry PBPAs are the worst PBPAs, so I didn't get a chance to check.
I appreciate that Zionite has said he intended to place pressure on CropCircles; my points are (a) it's a strange choice to put pressure on a player who's only made one post, and particularly when we're only 100 posts and a few days into the game; (b) it's particularly strange when you note that that vote was on Zionite, suggesting there's a personal reason Zionite targeted CropCircles (and said his post was the only one he couldn't justify); (c) those two elements together make more sense from a scum perspective (finding a suitable scapegoat) than town (finding scum); and (unspoken, because I'm not quite sure I'm remembering it right or how well Zionite knows CC) (d) CropCircles' posting patterns are sometimes erratic, so it's not a tell that he's only made one post so far.
Add all that up and it feels like Zionite wasn't being genuine about it, which jives with what I intend to put together in my PBPA which is a general sense of being insincere and inconsistent. I think Zionite's a good player, and that sense contrasts sharply with what I see as weak scumhunting on a target who isn't around to respond.
On the latter point: I don't like self-meta arguments either, but I'm citing that to skip past a lot of debates about the matter. I haven't played with some of the people in the game, and some of the others it's been a while, so I'm adding that as a big underlined point as to how I play as town/SK these days (that is to say, aggressive and quick with a conviction) - see Ataghan especially for an example of that game, to which Caex, zinda, and DRey can attest.
Yes, I could well be playing like this to throw off the aforementioned people, notwithstanding that I play very differently as scum because I hate playing scum. Naturally none of this confirms me. But at least now we can talk about it on the same level.
@Wessel: I'm just wondering how you rectify agreeing with supposed scum. Seems like a contradiction in mindset. And I don't think you ever responded to my rebuttal to your reasoning. If you did, please point them out.
You've got my attention with your case on Zionite, though. I'd be willing to vote Zionite or Stardust, along with Xyre obviously.
Caex, I don't like this. Setting yourself up to vote for the biggest wagon is bad. So I looked into you in more detail. Before I share that detail and what it means to me, I'd like you to spell out your case on me please. I feel like you tossed my name in there as an easy mislynch given that I'm fairly new and also notoriously scummy as town (ie: I'm bound to "slip" eventually).
Looool this is a bad post. I'm not "setting myself up" to vote the biggest wagon. I'm saying I will happily vote the biggest wagon (when the RVS votes are gone). He's the biggest wagon for a reason, you know. Pardon me if I'm interested in voting for scummy players.
As for you: I don't really have a "case" on you. But my gut reaction to your posts is that they're scummy. And my gut has proven pretty accurate in my recent games.
You pre-emptively proclaiming you'll be acting scummy and will scumslip at some point isn't making me feel any better about you, btw.
Unvote Vote Stardust
@Zionite: I'll get around to answering your question sometime today.
This post feels a lot like putting the cart before the horse. You're acting indignant about being criticized for wanting to vote for "scummy players", yet you've so far given a single debunked reason for doing so, aside from it's "the biggest wagon" (argumentum ad populum). Then you promise that the explanation for this behavior will come later.
I'm liking Caex for a lynch more and more.
You're reading too much into that. I put off responding to you because I didn't have a ton of time to post. I wanted to answer Stardust and Wessel because I could type it up quickly.
Sweet misrep on the bolded. I never said I would vote you because you're the biggest wagon. I said I would vote you because you're scummy, which is why you're the biggest wagon. Your phrasing is purposefully misleading.
Everything scares me... kitties scare me... squirrels scare me... corpses....corpses bring forth a pletora of confusing feeling which i prefer not to dwell on...:p
Well that's not exactly the reaction I expected. I'll have to think about what that OMGUS vote means here... Also, "biggest wagon" there was referring to any wagon that happens to build up, not Zionite in particular. You handwaved a reason to vote for any other three people, two of which were under pressure (both of whom I'm generally reading as town) and one that could be an easy mislynch (me).
I don't think OMGUS means what you think it means. It's not a simple catch-all phrase for when someone votes you after you attack them. It's when a player votes a detractor when attacked specifically because they were attacked; OMGUS votes lack legitimate reasoning.
I wasn't voting you because you were questioning me. I voted you because you came out and said "I'm going to act scummy and make scumslips, but everyone can ignore those because meta" after I already had a feeling you were scum.
Quote from Stardust »
As for my slips, you played with me in Giant Robots. You know this is true. I'm trying my best to comb through my posts here since it got us badly off track at times in that game, but using that as a basis for your vote is a non reason.
I don't know that to be true, actually. I don't recall reading you as scum at any point that game, only saying you could be scum based on PoE at the endgame. Just because Seppel kept saying you were scummy and people were following his lead doesn't establish any kind of meta for you to fall back on.
Quote from Stardust »
Anyway, I'd gone through your old posts and pegged you as leaning town actually based on your voting patterns. But now that you've followed your "gut" into a nervous vote, I'm not so sure considering there's a solid scum mindset behind that move. I'll mull it over to make sure I'm not being influenced by my own reaction to your vote. Stay tuned.
Elaborate on the "scum mindset" you see behind my vote, if you would.
Everything scares me... kitties scare me... squirrels scare me... corpses....corpses bring forth a pletora of confusing feeling which i prefer not to dwell on...:p
I find DRey's case on you good enough to vote but that'd put you in claim range when you've still got RVS votes on you. That's really not a fair thing to force someone to claim when some of the votes on them aren't actually serious.
I looked back at your posts as well, and saw stuff I didn't like. If you want specifics: The part where you said DRey's "RVS ending post" is fake and fluff and all that, but when pressed decide he's town.
Can you further define "stuff"?
This post is a contradiction. If you really believed it was a townie action to end RVS, why then call out DRey for a "fluff" post and imply he should know better? You're simultaneously saying that's a town post but is also fake. Does not compute. You explaining it away later reads as someone just trying to cover his ass by calling DRey town after the fact.
Quote from Zionite »
Did you read my response to DRey mentioning this same thing? What is your reaction to that?
Xyre's hard for me to read, but I have no reason to call him scum at this juncture. Stardust is following his reads and scum hunting, so I'm leaning town on him.
Hm... So if there's no reason to call Xyre scum, does that mean you think he's town?
How exactly is Stardust A)Following his reads, and B)Scum hunting? I'd appreciate specific examples.
Everything scares me... kitties scare me... squirrels scare me... corpses....corpses bring forth a pletora of confusing feeling which i prefer not to dwell on...:p
I generally define OMGUS as reactionary votes with no logical substance. My suspicions however come from flaws in Xyre's logic,
Stop you right there to note that you're sidestepping what DRey's saying, i.e. that I'm suspicious of you because you OMGUSed CC. That's only tangentially related to your suspicions of me. You're not acknowledging the fact that you voted him because he voted for you (your disapproval of his reasoning notwithstanding).
I'm not acknowledging that "I voted CC because he voted me" because it's wrong. I voted him because again, the vote was not random but was presented as random. I've already said this a few times, and you haven't stated why you think it wasn't random despite it's reference to actually ending the RVS.
Just because you can pull down a link to wikipedia doesn't mean you're using the flaw correctly. I was speculating as to your mindset after acknowledging I can't be sure. That's hardly a conclusive list, and thus creates no dilemmas, false or otherwise.
So you admit the list was bogus and yet you use it to conclude I don't have a town mindset. Don't you think that's a bit like playing with a few cards missing from the deck? If you weren't sure, why not just ask what my reasons were instead of soliciting an unnecessary claim? It's an anti-town action at best.
The option he ignored, which was quite obvious to everyone else, that my CC vote was for pressure to coax some content out of him. He then uses this fallacy to conclude that I do not have a town mindset.
Check out this sliming. In Zionite's view, I deliberately ignored something everyone but scumbag me recognized implicitly.
Here, let's make it easier. Show of hands - who assumed Zionite was trying to pressure CropCircles, who'd made one post with a random joke vote twenty posts into the game, to add more content to the game, rather than anything else?
You're strawmanning my argument here, and using rhetoric ("sliming") instead of logic to try to bolster your rebuttal. The point is that you left out a very possible option that led to your conclusion that I don't have a town mindset. Debating whether or not other players saw that doesn't change the fact that you decided to push me to claim range instead of simply asking for clarification. You deliberately used an incomplete list to justify voting me.
This reads as a scum curious to see what possible threats may be out there, and striking at the opportunity to get me to claim range despite simultaneouslyarguing that CC's vote was RANDOM. In which case, I would NOT be in claim range if CC had been present recently.
1) So your logic is I'm making a passive scum play (seeing if anyone agrees with me about the weird logic in your post) and an aggressive scum play (putting you to L-2 and demanding a claim) simultaneously? You must think I'm a strategic idiot. Or, better answer, you're trying to throw slime on me to throw slime on my case on you.
If I'm smart enough to know that playing like I've played in Seasons and Ataghan is a good way to appear town, regardless of my alignment, then I'm also smart enough to not mix up my strategies. I wouldn't put both of those pieces in the post unless I believed in both of them (town) or felt like both served my strategic goals (scum), and the latter doesn't work because those two elements strategically clash.
Sit down. You're done.
You're dodging my argument again. Why is it that you think a claim is justified when I have a supposedly "random" vote on me still? It's a complete contradiction. You can't say that CC's vote is random and say I should claim at the same time, because excluding the random vote I'd still be outside claim range. You're either
admitting CC's vote was not random, breaking your case against me, or
you're backpedaling, wrong to call for a premature claim, or
you're saying that random votes count toward claim ranges, an unprecedented call in our entire Mafia careers.
If these aren't the only options, tell me what I'm missing. If these are, you've slipped up and need to explain why.
But I'll humor you for kicks.
Your 1) is a strawman, and a simplification. You weren't at all seeing if anyone agreed with you, because you made an immediate call for a claim. There is no passivity here. The loaded words you're passing off as logic ("strategic idiot") doesn't hold water; it doesn't matter whether you're an idiot or not, you're still presenting faulty reasoning to justify voting me at a most convenient time for scum. What's even more interesting is that you're grasping for straws, trying to present self meta as legitimate proof. The over-confidence of "Sit down. Your done." attempts to use your (constructed) authority to leverage a self-meta argument that is absurd, even by vanilla Mafia standards. You even know that these are never accepted as legitimate. I can only assume it's your anger that prompted you to grasp at straws like you did here.
2) I've already demonstrated I don't stand on tradition. I'm not asking you for a claim because you're at L-2, I'm asking you for a claim because I want a claim from you and figure you're more likely to comply when you're at L-2. You're free to not provide if you feel like splitting hairs about CC's absence.
It's definitely better than any lead we have so far. Unvote CropCircles, Vote Xyre
Makes that CropCircles vote sound really genuine, doesn't it?
I'll go assemble a full PBPA of Zionite to get this more organized.
Your 2) presented here is using circular logic: "I'm asking you for a claim because I want a claim." Your conclusion is begging the question. Instead of saying what you want a claim for, you simply say you want a claim. Sorry, that doesn't fly. And no, I'm not going to claim when there is clearly Xyre-scum on the wagon.
Acting as if how I vote matters at all to the case against me is not really helping your position.
I wouldn't dust-off that PBPA notepad yet; you've got some more explaining to do until I'm satisfied.
You could be right. I've been thinking Xyre's scum for a while now. He's doing mainly observing and putting together some cases, but no questioning or investigating. I don't know 'townCaex' and my read on him isn't that good on him, but I'm happy to vote Xyre for his complete lack of active scumhunting.
Unvote, vote Xyre.
I'm biting my tongue really hard now to avoid swearing. Did you miss the part where I pointed to Zionite, DRey, and kpaca? Did you think I was just being facetious? I've been on their necks all game because right now I'm confident they're scum. What questions do you suggest I ask them?!
Confident already in a top 3 list? Within the first 120 posts of the game? You must be a wizard!
With that kind of accuracy, what wouldn't you ask of caught scum? Why, you could ask anything you need to in order to show the town your amazing scum hunting skills. But why bother when you already know who's scum, right?
If anyone wants another trust tell, it's that I don't get this pissed off when I'm playing like scum. (See Ataghan for the most recent example.)
As for Caex, considering the last game we played together, I feel like I'm more comfortable calling him town than that last one. That game, I had a gut feeling he was scum, but I couldn't separate his inexperience from scum tells enough to point to that crucial scum mindset. (For those who weren't in Ataghan, Caex's big thing that game was doing exhaustive PBPAs, which served the side purpose of being generic enough that he looked like a new player rather than a scum hiding generic attitudes.) Unless he's had a confidence transfusion between then and now, I think he's more genuine this game, and thus trust him at the moment.
No, more self meta isn't necessary. This is sloppy play.
Your meta tells for Caex are great and all, but they don't do anything for the rest of us to determine Caex's alignment. They are essentially null unless "confidence" is a metric we can actually use. Care to submit anything about Caex using evidence from this game?
I appreciate that Zionite has said he intended to place pressure on CropCircles; my points are (a) it's a strange choice to put pressure on a player who's only made one post, and particularly when we're only 100 posts and a few days into the game; (b) it's particularly strange when you note that that vote was on Zionite, suggesting there's a personal reason Zionite targeted CropCircles (and said his post was the only one he couldn't justify); (c) those two elements together make more sense from a scum perspective (finding a suitable scapegoat) than town (finding scum); and (unspoken, because I'm not quite sure I'm remembering it right or how well Zionite knows CC) (d) CropCircles' posting patterns are sometimes erratic, so it's not a tell that he's only made one post so far.
Add all that up and it feels like Zionite wasn't being genuine about it, which jives with what I intend to put together in my PBPA which is a general sense of being insincere and inconsistent. I think Zionite's a good player, and that sense contrasts sharply with what I see as weak scumhunting on a target who isn't around to respond.
On the latter point: I don't like self-meta arguments either, but I'm citing that to skip past a lot of debates about the matter. I haven't played with some of the people in the game, and some of the others it's been a while, so I'm adding that as a big underlined point as to how I play as town/SK these days (that is to say, aggressive and quick with a conviction) - see Ataghan especially for an example of that game, to which Caex, zinda, and DRey can attest.
Yes, I could well be playing like this to throw off the aforementioned people, notwithstanding that I play very differently as scum because I hate playing scum. Naturally none of this confirms me. But at least now we can talk about it on the same level.
A) It's equally strange to not try to push the game forward at all, even in the first 100 posts of the game. How is baiting reactions to get a read considered anti-town at this point of the game?
B) Why are you again ignoring the reference CC made about RVS being over? There's nothing personal about it; it was an odd post that deserved pressure, especially at the end of RVS when there isn't a lot to go on. It doesn't matter whether the vote was on me; what matters is that the post acknowledges the ending of RVS while refusing to participate in it. To take this further, why would scum-Zionite single out CC as a target when there are plenty of other OMGUS opportunities available?
C) This is the fallacy of composition/division. Even assuming you're correct about either/both A and B, it doesn't necessarily mean I'm scum. You gloss over this part of your explanation by simply saying it "makes more sense", but to us it doesn't. For posterity, I'll address your points anyway. I didn't have the need for a scapegoat at this point in the game, which I don't even think you're using this term correctly; how am I mis-attributing blame here when CC is the sole player responsible for CC's actions? I think you mean to say I needed misdirection, but even this doesn't make sense unless you can show that CC's vote was random, and that's not possible without CC himself. Assuming you still think that my vote on CC was not in the interest of finding scum, how do you explain my vote as not trying to bait a reaction? Isn't that exactly how to get out of RVS and into the meat of Day 1?
Finally,
D) I never said that CC posting only one time was a tell either way. I only analyzed the limited content I was given in the context of the posts before it. CC's meta is irrelevant here. (As an aside, I'm sure I've played with CC before, but I don't remember anything from those games and they wouldn't be applicable to a single post anyway).
So you're saying my pressure vote on CC was weak scum hunting because I should have known he wouldn't be around to respond? How was I supposed to assume that, given the posts were only a day apart and I haven't bothered take meta into account on ancient players?
Thanks for framing up your meta and guiding the discussion, but the detour isn't necessary. There's plenty of content here to hang you.
This post feels a lot like putting the cart before the horse. You're acting indignant about being criticized for wanting to vote for "scummy players", yet you've so far given a single debunked reason for doing so, aside from it's "the biggest wagon" (argumentum ad populum). Then you promise that the explanation for this behavior will come later.
I'm liking Caex for a lynch more and more.
You're reading too much into that. I put off responding to you because I didn't have a ton of time to post. I wanted to answer Stardust and Wessel because I could type it up quickly.
Sweet misrep on the bolded. I never said I would vote you because you're the biggest wagon. I said I would vote you because you're scummy, which is why you're the biggest wagon. Your phrasing is purposefully misleading.
So let me get this straight: you're again not going to explain why I'm scummy as you promised and as you further accuse me of here. But you're still going to reserve the right to vote me later without justification?
You haven't responded to my answer to your lone argument against me, which was shamelessly ripped off from DRey's post and passed off as your own read. This is so far the only reason you've given for suspecting me, and while it lies countered with no rebuttal from you, you still maintain that I'm scum. Again, I doubt you're doing this on purpose, but it's severely frustrating when you're making claims but refuse to back them up with your own evidence, or even take into account responses to others' evidence you've barned.
I find DRey's case on you good enough to vote but that'd put you in claim range when you've still got RVS votes on you. That's really not a fair thing to force someone to claim when some of the votes on them aren't actually serious.
I looked back at your posts as well, and saw stuff I didn't like. If you want specifics: The part where you said DRey's "RVS ending post" is fake and fluff and all that, but when pressed decide he's town.
Can you further define "stuff"?
This post is a contradiction. If you really believed it was a townie action to end RVS, why then call out DRey for a "fluff" post and imply he should know better? You're simultaneously saying that's a town post but is also fake. Does not compute. You explaining it away later reads as someone just trying to cover his ass by calling DRey town after the fact.
If you had read my response to DRey, linked above, you'd have seen that Town can post fluff in an attempt to bait for reactions. It's perfectly possible for a town post to be a fake one. This is further supported by DRey's eventual vote on me with no answer to my question, goading me once more to react so he can get a read. Just because you misinterpreted my post doesn't magically change it's meaning; I never said "DRey's post is fake and therefore scummy", I said "DRey's post is fake and he should know better". So tell me, how is my post a contradiction, and how does it make me scum?
Xyre's hard for me to read, but I have no reason to call him scum at this juncture. Stardust is following his reads and scum hunting, so I'm leaning town on him.
Hm... So if there's no reason to call Xyre scum, does that mean you think he's town?
How exactly is Stardust A)Following his reads, and B)Scum hunting? I'd appreciate specific examples.
Sure. Here is an example of Stardust following up on his reads. He admits he misunderstood the situation, and began another line of inquiry. This recent post shows Stardust doing some scum hunting. He is pressing Xyre, a new suspect, for answers to a couple of very good questions that illustrate a disconnect in Xyre's mindset. Hence, town read on Stardust.
Let's get a little nontraditional with this. I'm going to track a few separate elements, rather than go linearly to make it clearer. ('course, I assembled it in pieces, so it's a little all-over-the-place and hardly conclusive. Sorry.)
For reference, here are the numbers of the posts Zionite has made, with links and a very short factual summary, so you can check my work
14 - reaction to DRey's "claim" 18 - undecided on DRey, Wessel irony (the "soft post") 21 - response to me re "soft post" comment 33 - response to Wessel, WoLG, me 35 - clarification from me re bussing 39 - response to me re DRey claim "fake", vote on CC 41 - leaning town on "the [DRey] post as a whole", question to me re DRey 43 - question to Che re "overreaction"-vote 47 - more response to Che 49 - drunk 56 - response to me re bussing theory 82 - analyzes his wagon, justifies CC vote (CC's vote "masquerades as a random vote despite RVS being over"; "indication of scum opportunism with no interest in scum hunting") and excuses DRey's; calls a Caex statement scummy 85 - response to Caex (Xyre: "I have no reason to call him scum at this juncture"; Stardust: "leaning town") 88 - talking to Che about latter's exp. 94 - questions Wessel voting for Z because they agree on DRey 97 - Wessel cont. - "contradiction in mindset"; "I'm liking Caex for a lynch more and more" 102 - responds to my vote on him, with some hints of scum accusation within 107 - (after DRey expresses suspicion of Caex and me and votes the former) expresses suspicion of both of us, but particularly me (saying he thinks Caex was "unintentionally using fallacious logic") 113 - votes me after following up on DRey asking for a case; responds to Wessel
SCUM-LOGIC
14: This post has been pretty well broken down, between my points and Wessel's, so I don't feel like taking more time to deal with it after I've been at this for forty minutes now. Suffice it to say, it reeked then and it reeks now.
82: Oh, hey, you know what's interesting about Zionite accusing CropCircles of being scum for putting the third vote on him?
KPACA PUT THE THIRD VOTE ON DREY AFTER THE LATTER DID HIS SILLY CLAIM THING AND ZIONITE DIDN'T EVEN FLINCH.
That right there sends my head spinning a little. Sure, Zionite might hide behind the "but CC wasn't in the random vote stage" argument, but anyone with a little sense can tell CC's vote was a joke (and anyway, arguments based on "random votes" are by and large meaningless at best anyway). Certainly his vote was more of a joke than kpaca's, and kpaca voted DRey for the same reason I voted DRey seriously (I was 2nd in line) - because his post was super-scummy.
What's the phrase Zionite used? Oh yeah:
the 3rd vote on a single target in a mini. Even if it were RVS, that's an indication of scum opportunism with no interest in scum hunting.
I've bolded the important, fatal part. That part alone is a reason to hang Zionite.
Why didn't Zionite pick out kpaca? Methinks because kpaca, Zionite, and DRey are scum buddies and the former didn't pose a real threat to the latter. Certainly Zionite would have no reason to call out his scum-buddy for a faux pas like he would CropCircles.
Plus this explains why Zionite is so defensive of DRey's vote in 82. His argument, summarized, is this:
CropCircles was trying to make a serious vote look like a random vote without defending it, and it was opportunism for being third.
DRey's vote was fourth (strike), doesn't cite reasons (strike), and doesn't proffer reasons when asked (strike). But then Zionite doesn't even mention the similarity to CropCircles' situation, instead giving a lame reason to call DRey town... because scum don't want to end RVS? That's the worst argument I've heard so far this year, and patently untrue.
CC makes one post with a joke vote, is hiding a scum vote. DRey makes multiple scummy posts (that are later revealed to be townie posts), is "scum hunting", is thus town. The hypocrisy is incredible.
85: "I have no reason to call him scum at this juncture" is meaningless positioning. It leaves the door open to jumping on me in the future. If he doesn't have any idea what to say about me, on account of being hard to read, he'd just say "no idea", not check the water for blood.
This also counts as a point in the hypocritical reasoning column. In his immediately previous post, he characterized Caex's post (in which he states a willingness to vote for Zionite) as "an opportunistic reservation to the right to vote Zionite later."
94 and 97: Questions Wessel's suspicion of him on the grounds that Wessel is arguing a point (about DRey) that resembles a point Zionite had previously made, asking how Wessel could "rectify agreeing with supposed scum". This is a meaningless point; if DRey's town, scum Zionite knows DRey's town and thus can freely say he's town, and if DRey's scum, then of course scum Zionite would big up his mate.
But more to the point, the idea that somehow scum and town can't share similar viewpoints is intellectually dishonest, and I say is not something a townie would claim - certainly not one with experience like Zionite, who's likely seen such a confluence happen before.
102 and 113: On the third-person thing, see below.
There are many little examples of arguments that he makes here that shift to become more accusatory after his exchange with DRey (see below, re: that exchange). For example, in 102, he makes note of the possibilities I posited for his vote on CC. He refers to them like so:
Quote from Z, 102 »
I'm putting vote pressure on CC to get to talking, so none of your possibilities for my reasoning include the reality.
Neutral reasoning - "you're incorrect". Okay.
Jump forward to 113, and now we have:
Quote from Z, 113 »
My suspicions however come from flaws in Xyre's logic, particularly the false dilemma shown here:
[snip]
The option he ignored, which was quite obvious to everyone else, that my CC vote was for pressure to coax some content out of him. He then uses this fallacy to conclude that I do not have a town mindset.
Accusatory - implying I deliberately left those possibilities out, despite the truth being apparent to everyone, in order to pin suspicion on Zionite. Incorrectly uses the logical fallacy of a false dilemma, which also was not previously mentioned, and states that his suspicions stem from that original list.
All of this is new, and weirdly so. If the truth was apparent to everyone, why didn't he point that out the first time he responded to my list, rather than just correcting me? Answer: because between these two posts, he decided to pounce. (Again, see below.)
But maybe he just reconsidered (notwithstanding the context of DRey). Well, take a look at another shift.
Zionite's reaction to my request for a claim after putting him to L-2, in 102:
Quote from Z, 102 »
That's fine. But I'm content to watch how this plays out for now.
"Okay, well, we'll see."
Cut to 113:
And immediately pushes for a claim. This reads as a scum curious to see what possible threats may be out there, and striking at the opportunity to get me to claim range despite simultaneously arguing that CC's vote was RANDOM. In which case, I would NOT be in claim range if CC had been present recently.
Whoa! That placid response is gone. Now I'm trying to push for a claim before it's due. Another sudden realization? I don't think so.
No, I think Zionite did exactly what he implicitly promised to do when he said he had no reason to suspect me - he saw a drop of blood in the water and he went after it, teeth out. If all these scum tells were apparent, there'd be no reason for this sudden shift in demeanor; certainly it wouldn't be so abrupt a shift. But it makes more sense for a scum.
Side note: Again I'll reiterate the previously-mentioned logical knot in his claim that I was simultaneously tiptoeing forward and boldly pushing for a claim. That is, Zionite's argument makes no sense, internally.
DREY AND ZIONITE AS SCUMBUDDIES (102-111)
Look to the post series beginning with Zionite's response to my vote on him in post 102. Zionite's response to my vote on him expresses very little suspicion of me personally, and not until near the end; mostly it just uses deflective logic.
Then DRey immediately jumps in to unvote Zionite in 105, despite having previously asked for more votes on Zionite in 78. Well, okay, that doesn't look great, but he's a newer player, could just be a knee-jerk reaction. But then he says he thinks Caex and I are scumbuddies, preferring the latter to vote.
The very next post, 107, shows Zionite immediately coming around on the "Xyre is scum" idea, indeed thinking the "evidence against Xyre" is stronger than Caex, despite the fact that up until this post, he's expressed very little suspicion of me. That's the kicker - not just the fact that he OMGUSes me, but that he does it after getting the idea of pushing this Caex-Xyre scumbuddy notion from DRey. Classic scum follow behavior.
Well, you say, that could well be Zionite just joining in on DRey's silly notion because he thinks he can ride it along - DRey may still be town. Well, that's where we get the cherry on top, in post 111:
Aren't you sure you are being blinded by a natural OMGUS knee-jerk reaction?
If that's not coaching, I don't know what is.
(And if you think DRey doesn't coach his scumbuddies, that's exactly what kpaca, also a scumbuddy, nailed him for in Seasons. Enjoy, meta argument haters.)
THE THIRD PERSON THING
This is a little thing, but it keeps bugging me. What kind of crazy goon thinks of himself in the third person?
But it goes to mindset. In reference to Zionite's argument in 102, either way is "correct" in the sense of being grammatical, but he refers to himself in the third person because he doesn't want to come across as staging a personal defense when he's making a general point. But he's talking about someone voting for him! Of course the matter is personal. And referring to yourself in a non-first person is weird unless you're the Queen or a narcissist, neither of which Zionite is. (I think.)
I argue the third person mindset is a scum tell. This is clearer when we're looking at his point w/r/t CropCircles, rather than Caex, notwithstanding his effort to change the topic in 102.
As I previously noted, in 82, when defending his vote for CropCircles, Zionite refers to that vote as "the 3rd vote on a single target in a mini". Who's the single target? Zionite. Why not just say "the 3rd vote on me"? Because that would be OMGUS.
I posit a scum is far more likely than a townie to employ unusual grammatical constructions for the purpose of avoiding charges of OMGUS. Likewise, w/r/t the third person construction in 102, Zionite doesn't want to appear to be defensive. Both of these are important indications that Zionite's mindset is not normal.
Bottom line: Zionite's definitely scum. And DRey's very likely his scum buddy.
Apologies for the absence, it's been a long couple of days. I almost got caught up, until I got to...that. That right up there. Holy tl;dr man, I just worked a 14 hour shift, and it's time for bed. I'll finish reading and make a real post in the morning.
Also Unvote zionite, FTR it was a joke. It's been years since I've played and I wasn't about to miss RVS.
You've got my attention with your case on Zionite, though. I'd be willing to vote Zionite or Stardust, along with Xyre obviously.
Caex, I don't like this. Setting yourself up to vote for the biggest wagon is bad. So I looked into you in more detail. Before I share that detail and what it means to me, I'd like you to spell out your case on me please. I feel like you tossed my name in there as an easy mislynch given that I'm fairly new and also notoriously scummy as town (ie: I'm bound to "slip" eventually).
Mod: Time for a prod on CropCircles?
People with things to hide freak out when questioned
I do have questions now and will post them tomorrow.
I don't think OMGUS means what you think it means. It's not a simple catch-all phrase for when someone votes you after you attack them. It's when a player votes a detractor when attacked specifically because they were attacked; OMGUS votes lack legitimate reasoning.
I wasn't voting you because you were questioning me. I voted you because you came out and said "I'm going to act scummy and make scumslips, but everyone can ignore those because meta" after I already had a feeling you were scum.
I don't think that's a legitimate reason, which is why I called it OMGUS. I put a little bit of pressure on you and you voted me based purely on "gut". I'm more inclined to think that by "gut" you really mean "strategic targeting", which is where the scum mindset comes in. I'm not being targeted for being scummy, I'm being targeted for being an easy mislynch.
But anyway, I actually forgot you'd replaced into that game. Most of my "slips" that game were earlier (before you replaced Yanni), so you might be telling the truth about that. I'd be pretty surprised if you weren't aware of them at least, which is why I thought (and still suspect) that you might be trying to take advantage of that now.
Regardless, I'm not interested in going after Caex at the moment since I'm now convinced Zionite is where we should be focused. Vote Zionite. Beyond Xyre's pretty compelling case, Zionite's latest post didn't do him any favours. This in particular...
With that kind of accuracy, what wouldn't you ask of caught scum? Why, you could ask anything you need to in order to show the town your amazing scum hunting skills. But why bother when you already know who's scum, right?
feels pretty desperate and almost reads like a confession to me.
His response to Caex feels fake, and too forgiving. I'm going to go out on a limb and call these two scum buddies.
This is so far the only reason you've given for suspecting me, and while it lies countered with no rebuttal from you, you still maintain that I'm scum. Again, I doubt you're doing this on purpose, but it's severely frustrating when you're making claims but refuse to back them up with your own evidence, or even take into account responses to others' evidence you've barned.
But anyway, Zionite, if you could answer the question I asked you in this post, that would surely be appreciated.
I'm not acknowledging that "I voted CC because he voted me" because it's wrong. I voted him because again, the vote was not random but was presented as random. I've already said this a few times, and you haven't stated why you think it wasn't random despite it's reference to actually ending the RVS.
Okay, this is something I need to get off my chest:
THERE IS NO RANDOM VOTE STAGE.
EVER.
People joke around at the beginning of the game because they have ****-all else to talk about. That doesn't mean there's a set period in which jokes are legal, and after that moment passes you can't make a joke ever. Anyone who believes in a defined, bounded "joke time" is delusional.
Croppy specifically spoke to his desire to make a joke vote despite a more important conversation topic being available. That doesn't mean the entire post is a front - and, indeed, Occam's razor point's to that fact.
What's more likely - CropCircles made a joke, or CropCircles crafted a post elaborately designed to hide his true desire to put Zionite less than halfway to lynched while fronting a desire to make a joke?
If you say the latter, I'm going to hit you.
So you admit the list was bogus
Is this whole "making me look like a scumbag" thing compulsive for you? You can't say I'm wrong, I must be fake too.
and yet you use it to conclude I don't have a town mindset. Don't you think that's a bit like playing with a few cards missing from the deck? If you weren't sure, why not just ask what my reasons were instead of soliciting an unnecessary claim? It's an anti-town action at best.
How is not trusting the person you think is scum to give their honest reasoning anti-town?
You're strawmanning my argument here, and using rhetoric ("sliming") instead of logic to try to bolster your rebuttal.
1) How was that argument a strawman? Please explain in detail.
2) Explain how your use of biased rhetoric there was not "sliming". (Don't say the rhetoric wasn't biased. "Ignored" implies intention - that is, it implies I deliberately left out the "correct" choice, with malicious intent. Any other interpretation of that word choice is wrong.)
The point is that you left out a very possible option that led to your conclusion that I don't have a town mindset. Debating whether or not other players saw that doesn't change the fact that you decided to push me to claim range instead of simply asking for clarification. You deliberately used an incomplete list to justify voting me.
And that's where we get to my intention again. As previously noted, that directly contradicts my entire meaning in that section - I indicated rather clearly that I didn't know the correct reason, and was just spitballing. Hence why all the possibilities that sprang to mind were all prefaced by "maybe". Yeesh.
This is the same kind of leap in logic that's the real fulcrum of the CropCircles matter. You take my implied uncertainty to mean the same as deliberate shiftiness. You took his joke to be some grand anti-Zionite scheme. If you were a lesser player, I'd chalk it up to a victim complex. But that's why all these leaps of logic seem so out of character - you aren't a lesser player.
You're dodging my argument again. Why is it that you think a claim is justified when I have a supposedly "random" vote on me still? It's a complete contradiction. You can't say that CC's vote is random and say I should claim at the same time, because excluding the random vote I'd still be outside claim range.
And YOU'RE putting words in my mouth again. I've specifically said I don't stand on principle. I don't care if CC's vote was random or not - I want to see you claim, now, because I think you're scum and I'm feeling impatient. What's "justified" never was part of the conversation.
Much in the same way I don't believe in RVS, I also don't believe in "claim ranges", especially because people wield them like gospel. Claim ranges exist only to ensure claims don't occur too frequently, spilling a lot of unnecessary information.
I want you to claim because you're scum. You're free to ignore me. That's how the game really works - I can't compel you to claim even with five votes you deem legitimate. Hell, you're free to ignore me even when the rope's being fitted, too. I won't take it personally.
You're either
admitting CC's vote was not random, breaking your case against me, or
you're backpedaling, wrong to call for a premature claim, or
you're saying that random votes count toward claim ranges, an unprecedented call in our entire Mafia careers.
If these aren't the only options, tell me what I'm missing. If these are, you've slipped up and need to explain why.
But I'll humor you for kicks.
Thanks, dear. I appreciate the condescension.
Those aren't the only options. If I'm calling for a premature claim, I'm calling for a premature claim. I don't care.
And don't cite "our entire Mafia careers" when you still hold onto the delusion of RVS like it's a rabbit's foot. I've been around here longer than you. I remember when days lasted three hundred posts instead of a thousand. Don't tell me what's gospel.
Your 1) is a strawman, and a simplification.
[princessbride]You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.[/princessbride]
You weren't at all seeing if anyone agreed with you, because you made an immediate call for a claim. There is no passivity here.
Except you said "This reads as a scum curious to see what possible threats may be out there". Your words, not mine. A concern for possible threats is a hallmark of PASSIVE play. Do you disagree?
The loaded words you're passing off as logic ("strategic idiot") doesn't hold water; it doesn't matter whether you're an idiot or not, you're still presenting faulty reasoning to justify voting me at a most convenient time for scum. What's even more interesting is that you're grasping for straws, trying to present self meta as legitimate proof. The over-confidence of "Sit down. Your done." attempts to use your (constructed) authority to leverage a self-meta argument that is absurd, even by vanilla Mafia standards. You even know that these are never accepted as legitimate. I can only assume it's your anger that prompted you to grasp at straws like you did here.
Hey, you know what's interesting? None of the above actually responds to my argument!
Zionite waves it away by trying to chip away at my rhetorical style, and deflects my argument ("it doesn't matter whether...") to make the same tired point about his conception of my pressure on him.
He doesn't say a damn thing about my key point, which is that his logic is ass-backwards - he's trying in that original post to argue I'm simultaneously playing passive and active scum. A contradiction in terms, and yet he completely ignores that point.
Why? Because he knows it's nonsense and figures I'll flinch if he keeps deploying biased cliches like "grasping at straws" and "strawman". He even tries using my confidence and frustration with him as weapons against me - as a means of ignoring my argument! It's adorable, in a way.
Your 2) presented here is using circular logic: "I'm asking you for a claim because I want a claim." Your conclusion is begging the question. Instead of saying what you want a claim for, you simply say you want a claim. Sorry, that doesn't fly. And no, I'm not going to claim when there is clearly Xyre-scum on the wagon.
Again, just because you know how to put wikipedia links in your post doesn't mean you know what you're talking about.
(For that matter, I don't think you understand what begging the question is. Begging the question is different from circular logic - they're related, but they aren't the same. Begging the question is when you choose a flawed premise that directly proves the conclusion you want to reach. And the above argument ain't begging the question, it's circular logic. If you're going to lie, at least lie correctly.)
It isn't circular logic, either, because my justification for asking for your claim isn't just that I want your claim - that'd be a stupid thing for me to say. No, I want your claim because I think you're scum. I'm asking for your claim because I want your claim because I think you're scum, is the full piece.
And it's cute that you use your suspicion of me along with the CC feint to beg off claiming. By that logic, nobody would ever have to claim if they felt a twitch of OMGUS in their bones.
Acting as if how I vote matters at all to the case against me is not really helping your position.
Acting as if how I vote matters at all to whether you claim is not really helping your position, either, friend.
Confident already in a top 3 list? Within the first 120 posts of the game? You must be a wizard!
With that kind of accuracy, what wouldn't you ask of caught scum? Why, you could ask anything you need to in order to show the town your amazing scum hunting skills. But why bother when you already know who's scum, right?
Sarcasm doesn't constitute a real argument, y'know.
I'll fully admit I'm cocky. But until you start to respond to my reasons for suspecting you and the other two, rather than just trying to prove I'm scum to dismantle my case circuitously, I'm going to take it personally when you act like I'm not doing my job.
No, more self meta isn't necessary. This is sloppy play.
That's a contention that requires justification.
Your meta tells for Caex are great and all, but they don't do anything for the rest of us to determine Caex's alignment. They are essentially null unless "confidence" is a metric we can actually use. Care to submit anything about Caex using evidence from this game?
Why don't you give me a good reason why my meta arguments are unsound? I have a pretty good track record with this thing, as Ataghan indicates. Besides, Caex is a subject of little importance to me right now, when I'm busy dealing with your mountains of rhetorical arguments and my other two suspects besides. I'm not going to do your job for you when I don't care.
A) It's equally strange to not try to push the game forward at all, even in the first 100 posts of the game. How is baiting reactions to get a read considered anti-town at this point of the game?
Because baiting reactions from a player who isn't here is a waste of time, one, and baiting reactions from a joke vote is doubly so, two.
B) Why are you again ignoring the reference CC made about RVS being over? There's nothing personal about it; it was an odd post that deserved pressure, especially at the end of RVS when there isn't a lot to go on. It doesn't matter whether the vote was on me; what matters is that the post acknowledges the ending of RVS while refusing to participate in it. To take this further, why would scum-Zionite single out CC as a target when there are plenty of other OMGUS opportunities available?
Because he's the easiest one. Personally, if I were in your position, I'd be going after DRey, since his play is just godawful even out of the context of you. Hence my surprise that you haven't.
C) This is the fallacy of composition/division. Even assuming you're correct about either/both A and B, it doesn't necessarily mean I'm scum. You gloss over this part of your explanation by simply saying it "makes more sense", but to us it doesn't.
More wikipedia. Sigh. You're misusing this one, too. Obviously I can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt you're scum. All arguments are probabilistic in mafia. But even aside from that, fallacy of composition is a "forest for the trees" fallacy, which doesn't apply here. I'm using your actions to point to your likely mindset to get some sense of your scumminess. A fallacy of composition would be more like saying "if someone claims, we'll better know if he/she is scum, so everyone should claim so we better know if each of them is scum."
And don't say "us" like I'm talking to anyone but you here.
For posterity, I'll address your points anyway. I didn't have the need for a scapegoat at this point in the game, which I don't even think you're using this term correctly; how am I mis-attributing blame here when CC is the sole player responsible for CC's actions? I think you mean to say I needed misdirection, but even this doesn't make sense unless you can show that CC's vote was random, and that's not possible without CC himself. Assuming you still think that my vote on CC was not in the interest of finding scum, how do you explain my vote as not trying to bait a reaction? Isn't that exactly how to get out of RVS and into the meat of Day 1?
You're missing the point. OMGUS is usually a scapegoating action. I assume you know what a scapegoat is, right? After the Biblical sacrificial goat who carried the sins of the Israelites? Ergo, a metaphor for someone onto whom someone else sloughs their blameworthiness, in the case of mafia. I postulate you tried to start a case on CropCircles to divert attention from yourself. (And then of course CC shows up to save me the trouble of reiterating that his vote was indeed random.)
Besides, as you yourself said, we were supposedly out of RVS at that point, so there was no need to bait a response from CropCircles! We had plenty to talk about without you stretching CC's meaning to slam him.
D) I never said that CC posting only one time was a tell either way. I only analyzed the limited content I was given in the context of the posts before it. CC's meta is irrelevant here.
Then you must be the most myopic person I've met. You're telling me you gave no mind to the fact that CC never posted again after your supposed "pressure" vote? Or what, did you think he was trying to lurk it out? Because the fact that you never accused him of lurking seems to suggest otherwise.
Thanks for framing up your meta and guiding the discussion, but the detour isn't necessary. There's plenty of content here to hang you.
What content? You've incorrectly cited three different wikipedia pages, you've butchered rhetorical analysis, and generally failed to respond to half my points. I just spent an hour dealing with this mess, and all that time the one thought in my head was "I'm wasting my life telling a guy on the internet what a scapegoat is."
Respond to my true arguments, and my case, or hush up. If your next post is just like this one, I'm not going to sacrifice yet another hour responding.
You realize he didn't answer your question, right, Stardust?
He said he doesn't believe Zionite is scum. You asked why. He said "I think Drey Wessel and maybe Che are shifty" (and note that shifty doesn't mean he thinks they're scum - it's a dodge-word) "and I want to see what happens".
HE DIDN'T TELL YOU WHY HE DOESN'T BELIEVE ZIONITE IS SCUM.
The game is not being dumbed down. Control is doing fine; Draw-Go is not the only kind of control. Aggro is doing fine; Red Deck Wins is not the only kind of aggro. Creature combat is an important core concept and belongs in every color. Mythic rarity is not destroying the game. People whine too much for no good reason. Magic is more popular than ever, so keep calm, brew some decks and play some damn cards.
You realize he didn't answer your question, right, Stardust?
He said he doesn't believe Zionite is scum. You asked why. He said "I think Drey Wessel and maybe Che are shifty" (and note that shifty doesn't mean he thinks they're scum - it's a dodge-word) "and I want to see what happens".
HE DIDN'T TELL YOU WHY HE DOESN'T BELIEVE ZIONITE IS SCUM.
I am aware of that and have noted it for later since we don't want too many cooks in the kitchen, so to speak. But thanks for making sure.
Okay, kpaca, what's up with this mud slinging? I was going to wait until later, but I think you'd better tell us why Xyre, Wessel and DRey are shifty. Two of those people are strong town reads in my books. If you have a reason, give it. If you don't, cut it out because you're not being helpful.
I find it interesting that you came to exactly the opposite conclusion as me, since Zionite seems to be the one imploding as far as I'm concerned. Please explain your read here, DRey.
Unvote
I can empathize with being busy, hopefully you get time to catch up soon. I figured on the off chance you were just lurking that me voting you would get a reaction.
I hate to bring meta into account since I've been off the scene for so long, but Xyre's anger and ferocity towards Zionite reminds me of angry TownXyre. I'm not convinced that his points are strong enough for me to bandwagon Zionite, but depending on Zionite's response to Xyre's post #138, that may change. Their argument is almost to the point of ad hominem and insults though.
I'm not liking DRey's play at all this game, but I'm not sure if that's because I think he's scum, or because his recent posts have been...sloppy/scummy/weird. Definitely something I'm going to read more into.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-[thread=14456]The [Untitled] Avatar and Sig shop![/thread] Avatar from:[thread=25376] [Epic Graphics][/thread]
The Xyre/Zionite back and forth feels like a dead end. I think Xyre is relying far too heavily on meta and establishing connections before we even have a scum corpse to go off of. Far too flimsy for the conviction behind this wagon, imo, or for the call for a claim. Not reading scum vibes from his approach, but I doubt this will bear fruit, and the extent of the back and forth just makes it hard to follow.
I like Drey and kpaca for town. Active scum hunting, pushing for reactions, etc. Same general vibe from Che, but to a lesser extent for sure.
Also, Stardust: how many games have you played before?
Quote from Caex Kothar »
You've got my attention with your case on Zionite, though. I'd be willing to vote Zionite or Stardust, along with Xyre obviously.
So far, this stuck out to me the most. On top of his own personal target (Xyre), he lists the current wagon as well as Stardust, who is reading newb to me more than anything else, without even giving a reason for the suspicion for the last one. This looks like he's testing the waters more than hunting scum.
So I'm going to take a break from posting until tomorrow, since I typically spend about 2-3 hours making a post pretty. I read over Xyre's case and response though, and while I don't think all his points are strong ones, he sounds more genuine now than the posts that made the foundation of my case. I'll do a more detailed post tomorrow to respond to the pressing points on the back and forth (because it does deserve a response), but I don't intend to keep pushing for a lynch at this point. I'm not feeling as strongly about it as I was yesterday and a few other players have expressed disinterest in the whole thing, so erecting more walls of text to read is probably only going to be skimmed over anyway. Unvote Xyre
I'm looking at Caex as my next suspect; see previous posts for reasons.
@Stardust: I didn't forget about you; you'll get a response.
The Xyre/Zionite back and forth feels like a dead end. I think Xyre is relying far too heavily on meta and establishing connections before we even have a scum corpse to go off of. Far too flimsy for the conviction behind this wagon, imo, or for the call for a claim. Not reading scum vibes from his approach, but I doubt this will bear fruit, and the extent of the back and forth just makes it hard to follow.
I like Drey and kpaca for town. Active scum hunting, pushing for reactions, etc. Same general vibe from Che, but to a lesser extent for sure.
Also, Stardust: how many games have you played before?
Quote from Caex Kothar »
You've got my attention with your case on Zionite, though. I'd be willing to vote Zionite or Stardust, along with Xyre obviously.
So far, this stuck out to me the most. On top of his own personal target (Xyre), he lists the current wagon as well as Stardust, who is reading newb to me more than anything else, without even giving a reason for the suspicion for the last one. This looks like he's testing the waters more than hunting scum.
Vote Caex Kothar on that note.
So you're voting me because I said I would be willing to vote Stardust without giving a reason. But at the same time you say kpaca is town when he did pretty much the exact same thing.
What's the difference between kpaca "pushing for reactions" and me "testing the waters"? And what, exactly, makes you think I wasn't looking for a reaction from Stardust?
Everything scares me... kitties scare me... squirrels scare me... corpses....corpses bring forth a pletora of confusing feeling which i prefer not to dwell on...:p
CC - what's your opinion of the things I pointed to in 125?
The third person thing I think is valid, but it's a small tell in general, and I tend to find Zionite's phrasing a little weird anyway. Other then that, it seems like you are seeing what you want to see.
Example: the point where you try to say that he should have said "no idea" as opposed to "no reason to call him scum at this juncture." How you interpret that as him setting himself up for anything is beyond me, and the whole post seems slanted in that way.
Trying to connect him with Drey as scum doesn't help. It's far too early to be trying to make connections between players on that level.
You've got my attention with your case on Zionite, though. I'd be willing to vote Zionite or Stardust, along with Xyre obviously.
So far, this stuck out to me the most. On top of his own personal target (Xyre), he lists the current wagon as well as Stardust, who is reading newb to me more than anything else, without even giving a reason for the suspicion for the last one. This looks like he's testing the waters more than hunting scum.
Vote Caex Kothar on that note.
So you're voting me because I said I would be willing to vote Stardust without giving a reason. But at the same time you say kpaca is town when he did pretty much the exact same thing.
It's not just that you named him without giving a reason, it's the way you threw it in with the others and didn't mention him before that.
What's the difference between kpaca "pushing for reactions" and me "testing the waters"? And what, exactly, makes you think I wasn't looking for a reaction from Stardust?
When kpaca has shown suspicion, he has called attention to it. He didn't plant it in a spreadshot list. If you want to push for reactions, you push. If you're testing the waters, you drop the name in more casually.
CC - what's your opinion of the things I pointed to in 125?
The third person thing I think is valid, but it's a small tell in general, and I tend to find Zionite's phrasing a little weird anyway. Other then that, it seems like you are seeing what you want to see.
Not even the bit about a third vote from kpaca? I thought that part was pretty telling, myself.
Sigh. If I've lost CropCircles, I've lost middle America.
After latest developments I'm starting to think Xyre is scum with Caex (Caex attacks on him seem fabricated, so busing), but no matter Xyre's alignment Caex is scum, and Zionite is probably not.
Expand on this. In your very previous post, you repeatedly called Zionite scum, and you went on at length criticizing Caex's point about my meta. One day later, and Caex is my scumbuddy and Zionite's probably not scum? There's a missing reel here.
And since you ask for bullet points from Zionite on the case against me, I'm curious: what led you to suspect me? Be specific, please.
Also, Stardust: how many games have you played before?
Three and a half. Two of those were mod mafias, so you won't find them here. The "half" game was abandonded by the mod towards the end of Day 1.
AI, I'm currently voting for Zionite. I'll try to put my votes in more conspicuous places from now on!
kpaca, I'd forgotten that Wessel unvoted Zionite too. Given that the two "shifty" people (Wessel and DRey) jumped off as soon as Xyre jumped on, how does that change your read of Zionite's wagon?
Because to me is the opposite, I think Caex is purposely using bad logic, trying to create mountains of molehills on random people. Xyre on the other hand is just being an idiot, but that can be explained because he's cocky. Aren't you sure you are being blinded by a natural OMGUS knee-jerk reaction?
Mythic rarity is not destroying the game. People whine too much for no good reason. Magic is more popular than ever, so keep calm, brew some decks and play some damn cards.
Holy hell, I had to check the most recent VC to make sure you didn't just wonder in off the street. To be fair though, zindabad's meta is generally lurky.
I generally define OMGUS as reactionary votes with no logical substance. My suspicions however come from flaws in Xyre's logic, particularly the false dilemma shown here:
The option he ignored, which was quite obvious to everyone else, that my CC vote was for pressure to coax some content out of him. He then uses this fallacy to conclude that I do not have a town mindset. He also says this:
And immediately pushes for a claim. This reads as a scum curious to see what possible threats may be out there, and striking at the opportunity to get me to claim range despite simultaneously arguing that CC's vote was RANDOM. In which case, I would NOT be in claim range if CC had been present recently.
It's definitely better than any lead we have so far.
Unvote CropCircles, Vote Xyre
I want this point against Xyre to be the forefront of the conversation, so I'll be spoilering my response to Wessel, as the quote is quite long.
I feel that your suspect's suspects are very relevant to your eventual conclusion of alignment. You may not agree with the game being so early, but in general the targets of your target should be a factor taken into account in your read.
1)I agree posting the obvious is not a terrible tell to follow up on this early, but my point is that it isn't conclusive evidence of scum. I think another tell similar to this is posting irrelevant information about other games that can't be applicable to the current situation.
2)So maybe my question was misinterpreted as disingenuous. I can't really refute that in any way other than to restate that it was a serious inquiry, but that doesn't help you much. I was trying to get more content out of DRey to see where his motives are at, but since then there has been better reference points so I don't really need an answer anymore.
3)That's a pretty fair assessment. I'm concerned that the reasoning is couched in semantics, the use of "so...", because interpretation can vary on a platform like forum Mafia. But I see what you're getting at with your example questions.
Stop you right there to note that you're sidestepping what DRey's saying, i.e. that I'm suspicious of you because you OMGUSed CC. That's only tangentially related to your suspicions of me. You're not acknowledging the fact that you voted him because he voted for you (your disapproval of his reasoning notwithstanding).
Just because you can pull down a link to wikipedia doesn't mean you're using the flaw correctly. I was speculating as to your mindset after acknowledging I can't be sure. That's hardly a conclusive list, and thus creates no dilemmas, false or otherwise.
Check out this sliming. In Zionite's view, I deliberately ignored something everyone but scumbag me recognized implicitly.
Here, let's make it easier. Show of hands - who assumed Zionite was trying to pressure CropCircles, who'd made one post with a random joke vote twenty posts into the game, to add more content to the game, rather than anything else?
1) So your logic is I'm making a passive scum play (seeing if anyone agrees with me about the weird logic in your post) and an aggressive scum play (putting you to L-2 and demanding a claim) simultaneously? You must think I'm a strategic idiot. Or, better answer, you're trying to throw slime on me to throw slime on my case on you.
If I'm smart enough to know that playing like I've played in Seasons and Ataghan is a good way to appear town, regardless of my alignment, then I'm also smart enough to not mix up my strategies. I wouldn't put both of those pieces in the post unless I believed in both of them (town) or felt like both served my strategic goals (scum), and the latter doesn't work because those two elements strategically clash.
Sit down. You're done.
2) I've already demonstrated I don't stand on tradition. I'm not asking you for a claim because you're at L-2, I'm asking you for a claim because I want a claim from you and figure you're more likely to comply when you're at L-2. You're free to not provide if you feel like splitting hairs about CC's absence.
Makes that CropCircles vote sound really genuine, doesn't it?
I'll go assemble a full PBPA of Zionite to get this more organized.
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
I'm biting my tongue really hard now to avoid swearing. Did you miss the part where I pointed to Zionite, DRey, and kpaca? Did you think I was just being facetious? I've been on their necks all game because right now I'm confident they're scum. What questions do you suggest I ask them?!
If anyone wants another trust tell, it's that I don't get this pissed off when I'm playing like scum. (See Ataghan for the most recent example.)
As for Caex, considering the last game we played together, I feel like I'm more comfortable calling him town than that last one. That game, I had a gut feeling he was scum, but I couldn't separate his inexperience from scum tells enough to point to that crucial scum mindset. (For those who weren't in Ataghan, Caex's big thing that game was doing exhaustive PBPAs, which served the side purpose of being generic enough that he looked like a new player rather than a scum hiding generic attitudes.) Unless he's had a confidence transfusion between then and now, I think he's more genuine this game, and thus trust him at the moment.
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
What do you mean by this? (in response to me putting you to five votes)
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
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
* Stardust raises his hand.
At least, I did. He said as much in Post 102. But now that I look back, that doesn't jive with his actual vote... Zionite, why did you reply back with "my CC vote was for pressure to coax some content out of him" instead of "my CC vote was because I think he's scum"? Clearly you were reading that into your analysis of his jump onto your wagon. Why wasn't that your first thought when replying now?
Xyre, you say that Zionite's vote didn't have a town mindset. Does that necessarily mean it had a scum mindset? It felt like honest hunting to me at the time at least, though reading it again I may have just been fooled by the allure of Wagon Analysis™.
Point for later, I'm not a big fan of your self-meta there, but I'm looking forward to your additional analysis. Your case so far seems to be based exclusively on one post.
Thanks for the catch re: his motivations - I'm giving myself a break from Zionite before I go into it, because if history is any indicator my angry PBPAs are the worst PBPAs, so I didn't get a chance to check.
I appreciate that Zionite has said he intended to place pressure on CropCircles; my points are (a) it's a strange choice to put pressure on a player who's only made one post, and particularly when we're only 100 posts and a few days into the game; (b) it's particularly strange when you note that that vote was on Zionite, suggesting there's a personal reason Zionite targeted CropCircles (and said his post was the only one he couldn't justify); (c) those two elements together make more sense from a scum perspective (finding a suitable scapegoat) than town (finding scum); and (unspoken, because I'm not quite sure I'm remembering it right or how well Zionite knows CC) (d) CropCircles' posting patterns are sometimes erratic, so it's not a tell that he's only made one post so far.
Add all that up and it feels like Zionite wasn't being genuine about it, which jives with what I intend to put together in my PBPA which is a general sense of being insincere and inconsistent. I think Zionite's a good player, and that sense contrasts sharply with what I see as weak scumhunting on a target who isn't around to respond.
On the latter point: I don't like self-meta arguments either, but I'm citing that to skip past a lot of debates about the matter. I haven't played with some of the people in the game, and some of the others it's been a while, so I'm adding that as a big underlined point as to how I play as town/SK these days (that is to say, aggressive and quick with a conviction) - see Ataghan especially for an example of that game, to which Caex, zinda, and DRey can attest.
Yes, I could well be playing like this to throw off the aforementioned people, notwithstanding that I play very differently as scum because I hate playing scum. Naturally none of this confirms me. But at least now we can talk about it on the same level.
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
You're reading too much into that. I put off responding to you because I didn't have a ton of time to post. I wanted to answer Stardust and Wessel because I could type it up quickly.
Sweet misrep on the bolded. I never said I would vote you because you're the biggest wagon. I said I would vote you because you're scummy, which is why you're the biggest wagon. Your phrasing is purposefully misleading.
{Magic: The RPG}
I wasn't voting you because you were questioning me. I voted you because you came out and said "I'm going to act scummy and make scumslips, but everyone can ignore those because meta" after I already had a feeling you were scum.
I don't know that to be true, actually. I don't recall reading you as scum at any point that game, only saying you could be scum based on PoE at the endgame. Just because Seppel kept saying you were scummy and people were following his lead doesn't establish any kind of meta for you to fall back on.
Elaborate on the "scum mindset" you see behind my vote, if you would.
{Magic: The RPG}
DRey unreservedly saying "this isn't townCaex" is hilarious, considering Ataghan.
This post is a contradiction. If you really believed it was a townie action to end RVS, why then call out DRey for a "fluff" post and imply he should know better? You're simultaneously saying that's a town post but is also fake. Does not compute. You explaining it away later reads as someone just trying to cover his ass by calling DRey town after the fact.
See above.
Hm... So if there's no reason to call Xyre scum, does that mean you think he's town?
How exactly is Stardust A)Following his reads, and B)Scum hunting? I'd appreciate specific examples.
{Magic: The RPG}
I'm not acknowledging that "I voted CC because he voted me" because it's wrong. I voted him because again, the vote was not random but was presented as random. I've already said this a few times, and you haven't stated why you think it wasn't random despite it's reference to actually ending the RVS.
So you admit the list was bogus and yet you use it to conclude I don't have a town mindset. Don't you think that's a bit like playing with a few cards missing from the deck? If you weren't sure, why not just ask what my reasons were instead of soliciting an unnecessary claim? It's an anti-town action at best.
You're strawmanning my argument here, and using rhetoric ("sliming") instead of logic to try to bolster your rebuttal. The point is that you left out a very possible option that led to your conclusion that I don't have a town mindset. Debating whether or not other players saw that doesn't change the fact that you decided to push me to claim range instead of simply asking for clarification. You deliberately used an incomplete list to justify voting me.
You're dodging my argument again. Why is it that you think a claim is justified when I have a supposedly "random" vote on me still? It's a complete contradiction. You can't say that CC's vote is random and say I should claim at the same time, because excluding the random vote I'd still be outside claim range. You're either
But I'll humor you for kicks.
Your 1) is a strawman, and a simplification. You weren't at all seeing if anyone agreed with you, because you made an immediate call for a claim. There is no passivity here. The loaded words you're passing off as logic ("strategic idiot") doesn't hold water; it doesn't matter whether you're an idiot or not, you're still presenting faulty reasoning to justify voting me at a most convenient time for scum. What's even more interesting is that you're grasping for straws, trying to present self meta as legitimate proof. The over-confidence of "Sit down. Your done." attempts to use your (constructed) authority to leverage a self-meta argument that is absurd, even by vanilla Mafia standards. You even know that these are never accepted as legitimate. I can only assume it's your anger that prompted you to grasp at straws like you did here.
Your 2) presented here is using circular logic: "I'm asking you for a claim because I want a claim." Your conclusion is begging the question. Instead of saying what you want a claim for, you simply say you want a claim. Sorry, that doesn't fly. And no, I'm not going to claim when there is clearly Xyre-scum on the wagon.
Acting as if how I vote matters at all to the case against me is not really helping your position.
I wouldn't dust-off that PBPA notepad yet; you've got some more explaining to do until I'm satisfied.
Confident already in a top 3 list? Within the first 120 posts of the game? You must be a wizard!
With that kind of accuracy, what wouldn't you ask of caught scum? Why, you could ask anything you need to in order to show the town your amazing scum hunting skills. But why bother when you already know who's scum, right?
No, more self meta isn't necessary. This is sloppy play.
Your meta tells for Caex are great and all, but they don't do anything for the rest of us to determine Caex's alignment. They are essentially null unless "confidence" is a metric we can actually use. Care to submit anything about Caex using evidence from this game?
A) It's equally strange to not try to push the game forward at all, even in the first 100 posts of the game. How is baiting reactions to get a read considered anti-town at this point of the game?
B) Why are you again ignoring the reference CC made about RVS being over? There's nothing personal about it; it was an odd post that deserved pressure, especially at the end of RVS when there isn't a lot to go on. It doesn't matter whether the vote was on me; what matters is that the post acknowledges the ending of RVS while refusing to participate in it. To take this further, why would scum-Zionite single out CC as a target when there are plenty of other OMGUS opportunities available?
C) This is the fallacy of composition/division. Even assuming you're correct about either/both A and B, it doesn't necessarily mean I'm scum. You gloss over this part of your explanation by simply saying it "makes more sense", but to us it doesn't. For posterity, I'll address your points anyway. I didn't have the need for a scapegoat at this point in the game, which I don't even think you're using this term correctly; how am I mis-attributing blame here when CC is the sole player responsible for CC's actions? I think you mean to say I needed misdirection, but even this doesn't make sense unless you can show that CC's vote was random, and that's not possible without CC himself. Assuming you still think that my vote on CC was not in the interest of finding scum, how do you explain my vote as not trying to bait a reaction? Isn't that exactly how to get out of RVS and into the meat of Day 1?
Finally,
D) I never said that CC posting only one time was a tell either way. I only analyzed the limited content I was given in the context of the posts before it. CC's meta is irrelevant here. (As an aside, I'm sure I've played with CC before, but I don't remember anything from those games and they wouldn't be applicable to a single post anyway).
So you're saying my pressure vote on CC was weak scum hunting because I should have known he wouldn't be around to respond? How was I supposed to assume that, given the posts were only a day apart and I haven't bothered take meta into account on ancient players?
Thanks for framing up your meta and guiding the discussion, but the detour isn't necessary. There's plenty of content here to hang you.
So let me get this straight: you're again not going to explain why I'm scummy as you promised and as you further accuse me of here. But you're still going to reserve the right to vote me later without justification?
You haven't responded to my answer to your lone argument against me, which was shamelessly ripped off from DRey's post and passed off as your own read. This is so far the only reason you've given for suspecting me, and while it lies countered with no rebuttal from you, you still maintain that I'm scum. Again, I doubt you're doing this on purpose, but it's severely frustrating when you're making claims but refuse to back them up with your own evidence, or even take into account responses to others' evidence you've barned.
PREPOSTEDIT:
If you had read my response to DRey, linked above, you'd have seen that Town can post fluff in an attempt to bait for reactions. It's perfectly possible for a town post to be a fake one. This is further supported by DRey's eventual vote on me with no answer to my question, goading me once more to react so he can get a read. Just because you misinterpreted my post doesn't magically change it's meaning; I never said "DRey's post is fake and therefore scummy", I said "DRey's post is fake and he should know better". So tell me, how is my post a contradiction, and how does it make me scum?
So the answer is no, then.
Sure. Here is an example of Stardust following up on his reads. He admits he misunderstood the situation, and began another line of inquiry. This recent post shows Stardust doing some scum hunting. He is pressing Xyre, a new suspect, for answers to a couple of very good questions that illustrate a disconnect in Xyre's mindset. Hence, town read on Stardust.
For reference, here are the numbers of the posts Zionite has made, with links and a very short factual summary, so you can check my work
18 - undecided on DRey, Wessel irony (the "soft post")
21 - response to me re "soft post" comment
33 - response to Wessel, WoLG, me
35 - clarification from me re bussing
39 - response to me re DRey claim "fake", vote on CC
41 - leaning town on "the [DRey] post as a whole", question to me re DRey
43 - question to Che re "overreaction"-vote
47 - more response to Che
49 - drunk
56 - response to me re bussing theory
82 - analyzes his wagon, justifies CC vote (CC's vote "masquerades as a random vote despite RVS being over"; "indication of scum opportunism with no interest in scum hunting") and excuses DRey's; calls a Caex statement scummy
85 - response to Caex (Xyre: "I have no reason to call him scum at this juncture"; Stardust: "leaning town")
88 - talking to Che about latter's exp.
94 - questions Wessel voting for Z because they agree on DRey
97 - Wessel cont. - "contradiction in mindset"; "I'm liking Caex for a lynch more and more"
102 - responds to my vote on him, with some hints of scum accusation within
107 - (after DRey expresses suspicion of Caex and me and votes the former) expresses suspicion of both of us, but particularly me (saying he thinks Caex was "unintentionally using fallacious logic")
113 - votes me after following up on DRey asking for a case; responds to Wessel
SCUM-LOGIC
14: This post has been pretty well broken down, between my points and Wessel's, so I don't feel like taking more time to deal with it after I've been at this for forty minutes now. Suffice it to say, it reeked then and it reeks now.
82: Oh, hey, you know what's interesting about Zionite accusing CropCircles of being scum for putting the third vote on him?
KPACA PUT THE THIRD VOTE ON DREY AFTER THE LATTER DID HIS SILLY CLAIM THING AND ZIONITE DIDN'T EVEN FLINCH.
That right there sends my head spinning a little. Sure, Zionite might hide behind the "but CC wasn't in the random vote stage" argument, but anyone with a little sense can tell CC's vote was a joke (and anyway, arguments based on "random votes" are by and large meaningless at best anyway). Certainly his vote was more of a joke than kpaca's, and kpaca voted DRey for the same reason I voted DRey seriously (I was 2nd in line) - because his post was super-scummy.
What's the phrase Zionite used? Oh yeah:
I've bolded the important, fatal part. That part alone is a reason to hang Zionite.
Why didn't Zionite pick out kpaca? Methinks because kpaca, Zionite, and DRey are scum buddies and the former didn't pose a real threat to the latter. Certainly Zionite would have no reason to call out his scum-buddy for a faux pas like he would CropCircles.
Plus this explains why Zionite is so defensive of DRey's vote in 82. His argument, summarized, is this:
CropCircles was trying to make a serious vote look like a random vote without defending it, and it was opportunism for being third.
DRey's vote was fourth (strike), doesn't cite reasons (strike), and doesn't proffer reasons when asked (strike). But then Zionite doesn't even mention the similarity to CropCircles' situation, instead giving a lame reason to call DRey town... because scum don't want to end RVS? That's the worst argument I've heard so far this year, and patently untrue.
CC makes one post with a joke vote, is hiding a scum vote. DRey makes multiple scummy posts (that are later revealed to be townie posts), is "scum hunting", is thus town. The hypocrisy is incredible.
85: "I have no reason to call him scum at this juncture" is meaningless positioning. It leaves the door open to jumping on me in the future. If he doesn't have any idea what to say about me, on account of being hard to read, he'd just say "no idea", not check the water for blood.
This also counts as a point in the hypocritical reasoning column. In his immediately previous post, he characterized Caex's post (in which he states a willingness to vote for Zionite) as "an opportunistic reservation to the right to vote Zionite later."
94 and 97: Questions Wessel's suspicion of him on the grounds that Wessel is arguing a point (about DRey) that resembles a point Zionite had previously made, asking how Wessel could "rectify agreeing with supposed scum". This is a meaningless point; if DRey's town, scum Zionite knows DRey's town and thus can freely say he's town, and if DRey's scum, then of course scum Zionite would big up his mate.
But more to the point, the idea that somehow scum and town can't share similar viewpoints is intellectually dishonest, and I say is not something a townie would claim - certainly not one with experience like Zionite, who's likely seen such a confluence happen before.
102 and 113: On the third-person thing, see below.
There are many little examples of arguments that he makes here that shift to become more accusatory after his exchange with DRey (see below, re: that exchange). For example, in 102, he makes note of the possibilities I posited for his vote on CC. He refers to them like so:
Neutral reasoning - "you're incorrect". Okay.
Jump forward to 113, and now we have:
Accusatory - implying I deliberately left those possibilities out, despite the truth being apparent to everyone, in order to pin suspicion on Zionite. Incorrectly uses the logical fallacy of a false dilemma, which also was not previously mentioned, and states that his suspicions stem from that original list.
All of this is new, and weirdly so. If the truth was apparent to everyone, why didn't he point that out the first time he responded to my list, rather than just correcting me? Answer: because between these two posts, he decided to pounce. (Again, see below.)
But maybe he just reconsidered (notwithstanding the context of DRey). Well, take a look at another shift.
Zionite's reaction to my request for a claim after putting him to L-2, in 102:
"Okay, well, we'll see."
Cut to 113:
Whoa! That placid response is gone. Now I'm trying to push for a claim before it's due. Another sudden realization? I don't think so.
No, I think Zionite did exactly what he implicitly promised to do when he said he had no reason to suspect me - he saw a drop of blood in the water and he went after it, teeth out. If all these scum tells were apparent, there'd be no reason for this sudden shift in demeanor; certainly it wouldn't be so abrupt a shift. But it makes more sense for a scum.
Side note: Again I'll reiterate the previously-mentioned logical knot in his claim that I was simultaneously tiptoeing forward and boldly pushing for a claim. That is, Zionite's argument makes no sense, internally.
DREY AND ZIONITE AS SCUMBUDDIES (102-111)
Look to the post series beginning with Zionite's response to my vote on him in post 102. Zionite's response to my vote on him expresses very little suspicion of me personally, and not until near the end; mostly it just uses deflective logic.
Then DRey immediately jumps in to unvote Zionite in 105, despite having previously asked for more votes on Zionite in 78. Well, okay, that doesn't look great, but he's a newer player, could just be a knee-jerk reaction. But then he says he thinks Caex and I are scumbuddies, preferring the latter to vote.
The very next post, 107, shows Zionite immediately coming around on the "Xyre is scum" idea, indeed thinking the "evidence against Xyre" is stronger than Caex, despite the fact that up until this post, he's expressed very little suspicion of me. That's the kicker - not just the fact that he OMGUSes me, but that he does it after getting the idea of pushing this Caex-Xyre scumbuddy notion from DRey. Classic scum follow behavior.
Well, you say, that could well be Zionite just joining in on DRey's silly notion because he thinks he can ride it along - DRey may still be town. Well, that's where we get the cherry on top, in post 111:
If that's not coaching, I don't know what is.
(And if you think DRey doesn't coach his scumbuddies, that's exactly what kpaca, also a scumbuddy, nailed him for in Seasons. Enjoy, meta argument haters.)
THE THIRD PERSON THING
This is a little thing, but it keeps bugging me. What kind of crazy goon thinks of himself in the third person?
But it goes to mindset. In reference to Zionite's argument in 102, either way is "correct" in the sense of being grammatical, but he refers to himself in the third person because he doesn't want to come across as staging a personal defense when he's making a general point. But he's talking about someone voting for him! Of course the matter is personal. And referring to yourself in a non-first person is weird unless you're the Queen or a narcissist, neither of which Zionite is. (I think.)
I argue the third person mindset is a scum tell. This is clearer when we're looking at his point w/r/t CropCircles, rather than Caex, notwithstanding his effort to change the topic in 102.
As I previously noted, in 82, when defending his vote for CropCircles, Zionite refers to that vote as "the 3rd vote on a single target in a mini". Who's the single target? Zionite. Why not just say "the 3rd vote on me"? Because that would be OMGUS.
I posit a scum is far more likely than a townie to employ unusual grammatical constructions for the purpose of avoiding charges of OMGUS. Likewise, w/r/t the third person construction in 102, Zionite doesn't want to appear to be defensive. Both of these are important indications that Zionite's mindset is not normal.
Bottom line: Zionite's definitely scum. And DRey's very likely his scum buddy.
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
Tomorrow.
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 still coaching, though.
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
Also Unvote zionite, FTR it was a joke. It's been years since I've played and I wasn't about to miss RVS.
[The Family]
People with things to hide freak out when questioned
I do have questions now and will post them tomorrow.
I don't think that's a legitimate reason, which is why I called it OMGUS. I put a little bit of pressure on you and you voted me based purely on "gut". I'm more inclined to think that by "gut" you really mean "strategic targeting", which is where the scum mindset comes in. I'm not being targeted for being scummy, I'm being targeted for being an easy mislynch.
But anyway, I actually forgot you'd replaced into that game. Most of my "slips" that game were earlier (before you replaced Yanni), so you might be telling the truth about that. I'd be pretty surprised if you weren't aware of them at least, which is why I thought (and still suspect) that you might be trying to take advantage of that now.
Regardless, I'm not interested in going after Caex at the moment since I'm now convinced Zionite is where we should be focused. Vote Zionite. Beyond Xyre's pretty compelling case, Zionite's latest post didn't do him any favours. This in particular... feels pretty desperate and almost reads like a confession to me.
His response to Caex feels fake, and too forgiving. I'm going to go out on a limb and call these two scum buddies.
But anyway, Zionite, if you could answer the question I asked you in this post, that would surely be appreciated.
Why not?
And to get ahead of your "because hes town" answer, why do you think he's town?
CropCircles,DRey, Xyre, StardustThat should be right. What's shifty about that? Can you point out what is contrived about Xyre's case? It looks pretty solid to me.
I think I'll let some more posturing happen for a bit tho.
Okay, this is something I need to get off my chest:
THERE IS NO RANDOM VOTE STAGE.
EVER.
People joke around at the beginning of the game because they have ****-all else to talk about. That doesn't mean there's a set period in which jokes are legal, and after that moment passes you can't make a joke ever. Anyone who believes in a defined, bounded "joke time" is delusional.
Croppy specifically spoke to his desire to make a joke vote despite a more important conversation topic being available. That doesn't mean the entire post is a front - and, indeed, Occam's razor point's to that fact.
What's more likely - CropCircles made a joke, or CropCircles crafted a post elaborately designed to hide his true desire to put Zionite less than halfway to lynched while fronting a desire to make a joke?
If you say the latter, I'm going to hit you.
Is this whole "making me look like a scumbag" thing compulsive for you? You can't say I'm wrong, I must be fake too.
How is not trusting the person you think is scum to give their honest reasoning anti-town?
1) How was that argument a strawman? Please explain in detail.
2) Explain how your use of biased rhetoric there was not "sliming". (Don't say the rhetoric wasn't biased. "Ignored" implies intention - that is, it implies I deliberately left out the "correct" choice, with malicious intent. Any other interpretation of that word choice is wrong.)
And that's where we get to my intention again. As previously noted, that directly contradicts my entire meaning in that section - I indicated rather clearly that I didn't know the correct reason, and was just spitballing. Hence why all the possibilities that sprang to mind were all prefaced by "maybe". Yeesh.
This is the same kind of leap in logic that's the real fulcrum of the CropCircles matter. You take my implied uncertainty to mean the same as deliberate shiftiness. You took his joke to be some grand anti-Zionite scheme. If you were a lesser player, I'd chalk it up to a victim complex. But that's why all these leaps of logic seem so out of character - you aren't a lesser player.
And YOU'RE putting words in my mouth again. I've specifically said I don't stand on principle. I don't care if CC's vote was random or not - I want to see you claim, now, because I think you're scum and I'm feeling impatient. What's "justified" never was part of the conversation.
Much in the same way I don't believe in RVS, I also don't believe in "claim ranges", especially because people wield them like gospel. Claim ranges exist only to ensure claims don't occur too frequently, spilling a lot of unnecessary information.
I want you to claim because you're scum. You're free to ignore me. That's how the game really works - I can't compel you to claim even with five votes you deem legitimate. Hell, you're free to ignore me even when the rope's being fitted, too. I won't take it personally.
Thanks, dear. I appreciate the condescension.
Those aren't the only options. If I'm calling for a premature claim, I'm calling for a premature claim. I don't care.
And don't cite "our entire Mafia careers" when you still hold onto the delusion of RVS like it's a rabbit's foot. I've been around here longer than you. I remember when days lasted three hundred posts instead of a thousand. Don't tell me what's gospel.
[princessbride]You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.[/princessbride]
Except you said "This reads as a scum curious to see what possible threats may be out there". Your words, not mine. A concern for possible threats is a hallmark of PASSIVE play. Do you disagree?
Hey, you know what's interesting? None of the above actually responds to my argument!
Zionite waves it away by trying to chip away at my rhetorical style, and deflects my argument ("it doesn't matter whether...") to make the same tired point about his conception of my pressure on him.
He doesn't say a damn thing about my key point, which is that his logic is ass-backwards - he's trying in that original post to argue I'm simultaneously playing passive and active scum. A contradiction in terms, and yet he completely ignores that point.
Why? Because he knows it's nonsense and figures I'll flinch if he keeps deploying biased cliches like "grasping at straws" and "strawman". He even tries using my confidence and frustration with him as weapons against me - as a means of ignoring my argument! It's adorable, in a way.
Again, just because you know how to put wikipedia links in your post doesn't mean you know what you're talking about.
(For that matter, I don't think you understand what begging the question is. Begging the question is different from circular logic - they're related, but they aren't the same. Begging the question is when you choose a flawed premise that directly proves the conclusion you want to reach. And the above argument ain't begging the question, it's circular logic. If you're going to lie, at least lie correctly.)
It isn't circular logic, either, because my justification for asking for your claim isn't just that I want your claim - that'd be a stupid thing for me to say. No, I want your claim because I think you're scum. I'm asking for your claim because I want your claim because I think you're scum, is the full piece.
And it's cute that you use your suspicion of me along with the CC feint to beg off claiming. By that logic, nobody would ever have to claim if they felt a twitch of OMGUS in their bones.
Acting as if how I vote matters at all to whether you claim is not really helping your position, either, friend.
Sarcasm doesn't constitute a real argument, y'know.
I'll fully admit I'm cocky. But until you start to respond to my reasons for suspecting you and the other two, rather than just trying to prove I'm scum to dismantle my case circuitously, I'm going to take it personally when you act like I'm not doing my job.
That's a contention that requires justification.
Why don't you give me a good reason why my meta arguments are unsound? I have a pretty good track record with this thing, as Ataghan indicates. Besides, Caex is a subject of little importance to me right now, when I'm busy dealing with your mountains of rhetorical arguments and my other two suspects besides. I'm not going to do your job for you when I don't care.
Because baiting reactions from a player who isn't here is a waste of time, one, and baiting reactions from a joke vote is doubly so, two.
Because he's the easiest one. Personally, if I were in your position, I'd be going after DRey, since his play is just godawful even out of the context of you. Hence my surprise that you haven't.
More wikipedia. Sigh. You're misusing this one, too. Obviously I can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt you're scum. All arguments are probabilistic in mafia. But even aside from that, fallacy of composition is a "forest for the trees" fallacy, which doesn't apply here. I'm using your actions to point to your likely mindset to get some sense of your scumminess. A fallacy of composition would be more like saying "if someone claims, we'll better know if he/she is scum, so everyone should claim so we better know if each of them is scum."
And don't say "us" like I'm talking to anyone but you here.
You're missing the point. OMGUS is usually a scapegoating action. I assume you know what a scapegoat is, right? After the Biblical sacrificial goat who carried the sins of the Israelites? Ergo, a metaphor for someone onto whom someone else sloughs their blameworthiness, in the case of mafia. I postulate you tried to start a case on CropCircles to divert attention from yourself. (And then of course CC shows up to save me the trouble of reiterating that his vote was indeed random.)
Besides, as you yourself said, we were supposedly out of RVS at that point, so there was no need to bait a response from CropCircles! We had plenty to talk about without you stretching CC's meaning to slam him.
Then you must be the most myopic person I've met. You're telling me you gave no mind to the fact that CC never posted again after your supposed "pressure" vote? Or what, did you think he was trying to lurk it out? Because the fact that you never accused him of lurking seems to suggest otherwise.
What content? You've incorrectly cited three different wikipedia pages, you've butchered rhetorical analysis, and generally failed to respond to half my points. I just spent an hour dealing with this mess, and all that time the one thought in my head was "I'm wasting my life telling a guy on the internet what a scapegoat is."
Respond to my true arguments, and my case, or hush up. If your next post is just like this one, I'm not going to sacrifice yet another hour responding.
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
You realize he didn't answer your question, right, Stardust?
He said he doesn't believe Zionite is scum. You asked why. He said "I think Drey Wessel and maybe Che are shifty" (and note that shifty doesn't mean he thinks they're scum - it's a dodge-word) "and I want to see what happens".
HE DIDN'T TELL YOU WHY HE DOESN'T BELIEVE ZIONITE IS SCUM.
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
unvote, vote xyre
Mythic rarity is not destroying the game. People whine too much for no good reason. Magic is more popular than ever, so keep calm, brew some decks and play some damn cards.
I am aware of that and have noted it for later since we don't want too many cooks in the kitchen, so to speak. But thanks for making sure.
Elaborate.
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
Seems shifty don't he?
Who?
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
Drey
Yeah.
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
Okay, kpaca, what's up with this mud slinging? I was going to wait until later, but I think you'd better tell us why Xyre, Wessel and DRey are shifty. Two of those people are strong town reads in my books. If you have a reason, give it. If you don't, cut it out because you're not being helpful.Oh, kp was talking about DRey. Carry on.
I find it interesting that you came to exactly the opposite conclusion as me, since Zionite seems to be the one imploding as far as I'm concerned. Please explain your read here, DRey.
I can empathize with being busy, hopefully you get time to catch up soon. I figured on the off chance you were just lurking that me voting you would get a reaction.
I hate to bring meta into account since I've been off the scene for so long, but Xyre's anger and ferocity towards Zionite reminds me of angry TownXyre. I'm not convinced that his points are strong enough for me to bandwagon Zionite, but depending on Zionite's response to Xyre's post #138, that may change. Their argument is almost to the point of ad hominem and insults though.
I'm not liking DRey's play at all this game, but I'm not sure if that's because I think he's scum, or because his recent posts have been...sloppy/scummy/weird. Definitely something I'm going to read more into.
-[thread=14456]The [Untitled] Avatar and Sig shop![/thread] Avatar from:[thread=25376] [Epic Graphics][/thread]
Awards:
Elegant Mafia: The Joker, Mafia MVP
The Xyre/Zionite back and forth feels like a dead end. I think Xyre is relying far too heavily on meta and establishing connections before we even have a scum corpse to go off of. Far too flimsy for the conviction behind this wagon, imo, or for the call for a claim. Not reading scum vibes from his approach, but I doubt this will bear fruit, and the extent of the back and forth just makes it hard to follow.
I like Drey and kpaca for town. Active scum hunting, pushing for reactions, etc. Same general vibe from Che, but to a lesser extent for sure.
Also, Stardust: how many games have you played before?
So far, this stuck out to me the most. On top of his own personal target (Xyre), he lists the current wagon as well as Stardust, who is reading newb to me more than anything else, without even giving a reason for the suspicion for the last one. This looks like he's testing the waters more than hunting scum.
Vote Caex Kothar on that note.
[The Family]
So I'm going to take a break from posting until tomorrow, since I typically spend about 2-3 hours making a post pretty. I read over Xyre's case and response though, and while I don't think all his points are strong ones, he sounds more genuine now than the posts that made the foundation of my case. I'll do a more detailed post tomorrow to respond to the pressing points on the back and forth (because it does deserve a response), but I don't intend to keep pushing for a lynch at this point. I'm not feeling as strongly about it as I was yesterday and a few other players have expressed disinterest in the whole thing, so erecting more walls of text to read is probably only going to be skimmed over anyway.
Unvote Xyre
I'm looking at Caex as my next suspect; see previous posts for reasons.
@Stardust: I didn't forget about you; you'll get a response.
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
I'm smelling what Cc is stepping in.
If necessary.
What's the difference between kpaca "pushing for reactions" and me "testing the waters"? And what, exactly, makes you think I wasn't looking for a reaction from Stardust?
{Magic: The RPG}
Example: the point where you try to say that he should have said "no idea" as opposed to "no reason to call him scum at this juncture." How you interpret that as him setting himself up for anything is beyond me, and the whole post seems slanted in that way.
Trying to connect him with Drey as scum doesn't help. It's far too early to be trying to make connections between players on that level.
It's not just that you named him without giving a reason, it's the way you threw it in with the others and didn't mention him before that.
When kpaca has shown suspicion, he has called attention to it. He didn't plant it in a spreadshot list. If you want to push for reactions, you push. If you're testing the waters, you drop the name in more casually.
[The Family]
Not even the bit about a third vote from kpaca? I thought that part was pretty telling, myself.
Sigh. If I've lost CropCircles, I've lost middle America.
I'll go do some homework on DRey.
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?
What's your opinion on Zionite? Why do you think he went on Crop and not you?
Expand on this. In your very previous post, you repeatedly called Zionite scum, and you went on at length criticizing Caex's point about my meta. One day later, and Caex is my scumbuddy and Zionite's probably not scum? There's a missing reel here.
And since you ask for bullet points from Zionite on the case against me, I'm curious: what led you to suspect me? Be specific, please.
And what's your current opinion on Caex Kothar?
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
Zionite (3): Che Guevera, Xyre, Stardust
Xyre (2): Wessel, DRey
Caex Kothar (2): CropCircles, kpaca
WellOfLostGnomes (1): zindabad
Stardust (1): Caex Kothar
Not Voting (3): Deaths_Vampire, WellOfLostGnomes, Zionite
With 12 alive, it takes 7 votes to lynch.
Day One will end no later than 11:59PM, Saturday, April 27th.
OP Rules amended to forbid thanking of posts.
Cheers!
Three and a half. Two of those were mod mafias, so you won't find them here. The "half" game was abandonded by the mod towards the end of Day 1.
AI, I'm currently voting for Zionite. I'll try to put my votes in more conspicuous places from now on!
kpaca, I'd forgotten that Wessel unvoted Zionite too. Given that the two "shifty" people (Wessel and DRey) jumped off as soon as Xyre jumped on, how does that change your read of Zionite's wagon?
Zionite, are the two bolded bits here related?