I see you answered the question I was asking of you. I will check your other game out soon.
I've seen town!void post this line several times previously. + to my opinion of Void.
How is that relevant to alignment?
I was mostly just jotting it down for future reference. I think there's something with Void's thought processes when he's town that makes him say stuff like that in-thread. It's a really subtle thing -- to the point where I'm not even sure that he knows he does it. It's also not a big enough deal that I'm going to make something out of it -- it's like a penny. If I see enough pennies, then we've got a nickel. But by itself -- largely meaningless.
Does that make sense?
Alright.
By the way, Celtic mythology?
I'm impressed. Pretty much nobody actually knows where my username comes from without me telling them first. Good stuff
-------------
I'm actually going to /barn Rhand regarding Kosa. In my experience, town!Kosa tends to post very transparently -- he's very similar to me in that regard. He just kind of says what's on his mind and doesn't really give the impression that he has any kind of plan. This Kosa feels like he's put much more thought into what he's saying.
More pressure on Eron, Kosa, and Hawk IMO -- all three are good leads.
Why are you more worried about the signals you're giving out than voting who you think to be scummy (or "suspicious")?
And why wouldn't you unvote Shark in that case?
I'm not disregarding voting scummy people. I had 3 people that I thought were scummy, I had my vote on one and my FoS on another. I guess the way I stated it was pretty bad because I made it sound like my vote was only staying there because of RVS when I had my reasons to leave it there.
No I didn't want to unvote shark at the time, I thought his attack was bad.
I will unvote now considering the argument against Eron slipping is invalid and I think Cyouni put it best that bad does not equal scum. I guess I should just take sharks opener as the normal here. Unvote
@Arianrhod
So you barned shark earlier, you are now barning rhand. Why do I get the feeling that you are trying really hard to find the easiest lynch?
Why are you more worried about the signals you're giving out than voting who you think to be scummy (or "suspicious")?
And why wouldn't you unvote Shark in that case?
I'm not disregarding voting scummy people. I had 3 people that I thought were scummy, I had my vote on one and my FoS on another. I guess the way I stated it was pretty bad because I made it sound like my vote was only staying there because of RVS when I had my reasons to leave it there.
No I didn't want to unvote shark at the time, I thought his attack was bad.
I will unvote now considering the argument against Eron slipping is invalid and I think Cyouni put it best that bad does not equal scum. I guess I should just take sharks opener as the normal here. Unvote
@Arianrhod
So you barned shark earlier, you are now barning rhand. Why do I get the feeling that you are trying really hard to find the easiest lynch?
Because as scum, you want to see me mislynched, or because as town, you believe that I am scum, and therefore you want to see things that fit with your worldview.
If I were just saying /barn and letting it go at that, without adding any of my own reasoning or thoughts on the point that I'm agreeing with, then you would have something. But that's not what I'm doing.
I'm really confused at your reasoning for unvoting. Can you spell it out a bit better?
I've looked in to shark's other games and his gameplay seems normal. His arguments were mostly invalid and he apparently really enjoys killing RVS.
Like I said earlier, your shark barn rubbed me the wrong way. I am suspicious of you so I will notice things you do.
As far as Kosa goes I disagree with you and Rhand. I don't think he is acting that much differently other than metagaming which I think will naturally happen after playing games with the same people.
Rhand
The "weird" vibes that you are getting from KK, would you please explain why this is scumKK compared to townKK? And why you belive this to be a scum mindset?
I can't compare to scumkk, but the confidence with which he posts and the involvement he shows are not the townkk that I know.
His posts come off as too calculated.
Why is this a scum mind set and not a town mind set?
I can't compare to scumkk, but the confidence with which he posts and the involvement he shows are not the townkk that I know.
His posts come off as too calculated.
@Rhand, Do you think he is more confident or less confident?
Because as scum, you want to see me mislynched, or because as town, you believe that I am scum, and therefore you want to see things that fit with your worldview.
Dat textbook response huh
IIRC, this is my 7th game here. For seven consecutive times, random.org has cockblocked a big "NO!" in my face to my presence in a scum team. When I finally get to be scum, you can be sure that I will either lose by being nailed in my first post or win by being widely considered "obvtown" up to the endgame quickhammer
At the time I thought it was pointless to leave the question open because scum-hawk would've had the perfect defense ("I was voting Shark"). I was wrong.
I dislike Shark more than EtR at this point.
His scumslip post and the reversing stance he took about you don't add up.
Eron on the other hand is showing his normal town reaction on pressure.
What's up with the false dichotomy?
Where is the false dichotomy there? To me it reads as two unrelated views.
Because as scum, you want to see me mislynched, or because as town, you believe that I am scum, and therefore you want to see things that fit with your worldview.
Because as scum, you want to see me mislynched, or because as town, you believe that I am scum, and therefore you want to see things that fit with your worldview.
That's not an answer. Why?
How is it not an answer? He feels that I'm looking for an easy lynch. Shark and Rhand have made points that I agreed with, and then I added my own viewpoint onto them. I fail to see the connection between the two, so my reply is naturally somewhat droll.
@Kosa: assuming you're telling the truth, I feel your pain. Ataghan's still my only scum game, and I've found myself actively wanting to get rolled on the scum team so I can practice that aspect of my game more =/
Also @Kosa, what do you think of Hawk thusfar, and what do you think of Rhand's (and my) accusation that you seem to be posting with a degree of intent as opposed to your usual transparent style?
@Silver: nothing about hawk has called my attention, which can be a good sign because either he isn't scum or he's becoming a better player and improved his early scum game.
Rhand is a fairly good player to be randomly throwing out that accusation as scum. For me, it reads more as if he's trying to test people and generate content. If he's town and really believes in what he posted, I can sort of see where he's coming from. We've played only two games together, Innistrad and Vanilla 2. In Innistrad, of course I was being transparent because when he had joined in, I was almost being mislynched on D1, more than 2 weeks away from the deadline, for claiming what I really was (VT). In Vanilla, well, I rogue-hammered him because hey, let's do it
Of course I'm posting with a degree of intent. This is a League game and I'd be particularly annoyed by losing this one, especially if my bad reads contribute to it. And of course I have a plan! Who doesn't? For me, the whole point of the game is to support the good plans and track down the bad plans in a bloody fashion
Do you consider me transparent? I normally put so much effort in thinking before posting...
@Silver: nothing about hawk has called my attention, which can be a good sign because either he isn't scum or he's becoming a better player and improved his early scum game.
Rhand is a fairly good player to be randomly throwing out that accusation as scum. For me, it reads more as if he's trying to test people and generate content. If he's town and really believes in what he posted, I can sort of see where he's coming from. We've played only two games together, Innistrad and Vanilla 2. In Innistrad, of course I was being transparent because when he had joined in, I was almost being mislynched on D1, more than 2 weeks away from the deadline, for claiming what I really was (VT). In Vanilla, well, I rogue-hammered him because hey, let's do it
Of course I'm posting with a degree of intent. This is a League game and I'd be particularly annoyed by losing this one, especially if my bad reads contribute to it. And of course I have a plan! Who doesn't? For me, the whole point of the game is to support the good plans and track down the bad plans in a bloody fashion
Do you consider me transparent? I normally put so much effort in thinking before posting...
That....that is a psyduck with a jitte. How did I not know that this existed previously
Why do you say that you're losing already? Just because you're being questioned hardly means that you're losing. You seem very needlessly touchy here -- why go into an offshoot rant about your mafia-playing philosophy?
I never have a plan when I play mafia -- at the very least, as town. I just kind of ride the waves, poke some people with sticks, and see what falls out. Then somewhere along the way I form opinions about people, and then I go from there once I have opinions.
And yes, I do normally consider you to be quite transparent. You usually come across as very relaxed when you're town, which is not the feeling that I'm getting from you right now.
Why do you say that you're losing already? Just because you're being questioned hardly means that you're losing. You seem very needlessly touchy here -- why go into an offshoot rant about your mafia-playing philosophy?
I didn't say I'm losing. I said, in response to your intent question, that I'm trying to pay more attention to this game because it's a League one and I don't want to lose this.
I never have a plan when I play mafia -- at the very least, as town. I just kind of ride the waves, poke some people with sticks, and see what falls out. Then somewhere along the way I form opinions about people, and then I go from there once I have opinions.
And yes, I do normally consider you to be quite transparent. You usually come across as very relaxed when you're town, which is not the feeling that I'm getting from you right now.
Something isn't adding up here.
Unvote. Vote Kosa.
Yeah, something really isn't. For example, you stating that I'm "quite transparent" despite having played only one game with me (Ataghan), in which you were scum, so obviously I was transparent to you. That is no basis of comparison whatsoever as you should know. Makes me wonder about what you're trying to accomplish here.
Why do you say that you're losing already? Just because you're being questioned hardly means that you're losing. You seem very needlessly touchy here -- why go into an offshoot rant about your mafia-playing philosophy?
I didn't say I'm losing. I said, in response to your intent question, that I'm trying to pay more attention to this game because it's a League one and I don't want to lose this.
I never have a plan when I play mafia -- at the very least, as town. I just kind of ride the waves, poke some people with sticks, and see what falls out. Then somewhere along the way I form opinions about people, and then I go from there once I have opinions.
And yes, I do normally consider you to be quite transparent. You usually come across as very relaxed when you're town, which is not the feeling that I'm getting from you right now.
Something isn't adding up here.
Unvote. Vote Kosa.
Yeah, something really isn't. For example, you stating that I'm "quite transparent" despite having played only one game with me (Ataghan), in which you were scum, so obviously I was transparent to you. That is no basis of comparison whatsoever as you should know. Makes me wonder about what you're trying to accomplish here.
I owe you an apology. I misread your "losing" line -- I thought that you had said that "I'm annoyed to be losing this game," not the as-written "I'd be annoyed to lose." I actually didn't notice until I went back to directly quote it...then I was like....welp.
And yes, my plan is to never have a plan! Plan around that plan, man!
Also, your transparent style of posting is in my opinion, not in my experience, If that makes sense. Like, I tried to approach Ataghan from the perspective of / belief that I was town -- and that was the impression I got of you, regardless of whether I knew your alignment or not. Take that for what you will.
Either way, again, my apologies for misreading your post.
That's quite an interesting twist you're giving my post. If you had actually taken the time to read what happened instead of jumping to conclusions based on the fact that I reposted the rules, you would see that Hawk thought that I had gotten this information from Guardman himself. I posted what I did and clearly stated that it was from the original post so that there would be no confusion on Hawk's part as I also assumed that he was new-ish.
How you can possibly try and slant that as a negative is beyond me. The only conclusion that I can come to is that you are simply not reading what is happening here.
Note a few things.
There is no thought of Shark as scum - the "only conclusion" is that Shark's "simply not reading". This is confirmed by "jumping to conclusions", where Shark didn't "read what happened".
If my mindset is inconsistent, which it may very well be, it's because I'm trying to figure out Shark's angle. I want to believe that he's just decided to bulldog this and is town, but the way he's 1) avoided certain questions and 2) twisted what has occurred, is giving me second thoughts.
Oh? You go from thinking he's town in #88, to scum in #92, and then back to town in #122:
If my post contained nothing useful, how exactly was it a slip? Where did I say what number of chimes there were? And it's cute that you are making assumptions for me. Instead of, you know, reading what I said. I quoted the rules in full because Hawk thought that I got the information from Gman. I didn't want him operating under a false assumption.
I'd love to hear what changed your mind from the "only conclusion" in two hours/three posts.
I don't really understand what you are seeing as a difference between the two. Can you clarify for me?
Just to be clear Shark, if your argument is around the fact that I scumslipped about the number of Chimes, and I in fact never stated a number of Chimes, your argument would then be invalid, would it not?
Why do you keep trotting out this defense? The question you presumably were responding to with the rules quote was "Why do you say there are definitely four chimes?" If you weren't implicitly agreeing with TCM that there are four chimes, then...what were you trying to tell me?
Because to me there is a difference that seems to be overlooked here. Shark is claiming that both TCM and I scum slipped. Well...At least he was claiming both of us were. Now it seems that he thinks only I scum slipped.
Anyway, If I was pointing out to you where I believed that TCM derived his info from, that isn't the same as me agreeing to how many Chimes there are. Shark seems to think that I slipped, but if I never gave a number, how could I have? You could infer that I was agreeing with TCM, but even if I was, the end result is that TCM is the one that actually gave the number. If the person that provided the number didn't slip (in Shark's opinion) how could the person that quoted where the information could be derived from be considered the one that slipped? It doesn't add up and it further demonstrates the inconsistency of Shark's mindset.
Additionally, the fact that he is attempting to further his cause of pushing against me by stating that it's scummy that I quoted the rules to back my position, when I never took a position in the first place shows that he is looking for something to stick.
I think it also speaks poorly of The Artist Formerly Known As Silver that he barned the argument.
I'm actually going to /barn Rhand regarding Kosa. In my experience, town!Kosa tends to post very transparently -- he's very similar to me in that regard. He just kind of says what's on his mind and doesn't really give the impression that he has any kind of plan. This Kosa feels like he's put much more thought into what he's saying.
More pressure on Eron, Kosa, and Hawk IMO -- all three are good leads.
How does ScumKosa post, in your opinion?
Also, Unvote: CantripMancer (RVS VOTE); Vote Arianrhod I don't like your barn of Shark's vote on me and your current back and forth with Kosa doesn't look to good for you either.
I asked this to Rhand and I expect a response, I would also like a response from you
@Arianhad
Do you think Kosa is more or less confidant this game than usual?
Quick post. I know I have to respond to several questions and add mor thoughts but I see EtR missed where I believe he first misstepped, but here it is for context. Note he responds to TCM using the rules to justify the 4 chimes. It is also referenced again when responding to 77hawk (why 4 chimes?) here he quotes twice.
If I am reading this correctly, the mafia are considered "chimes" in this game. The onyl primary difference is that they do no possess a nk (correct me if I am wrong). Based on the OP, the player results are:
4 Chime Players
11 Town players
1 SK
Why do you say there are definitely four chimes? The way I see it there can logically be anywhere from 2-6 chimes.
Yes, I don't see scum w/o daychat trying to ask why they don't publically. It just doesn't make any logical sense to me. I dont follow that logic at all.
I'm saying that if KK is a chime and there's no scumchat, he slipped
"5. Each dead Chime increases the time it takes for them to win by 1 Day. With all of them alive it will take them 4 Days to win. If at the end of Day 4 they are all alive they have won. Chimes do not have a mafia nightkill (you know since they aren't mafia)."
Just to be clear Shark, if your argument is around the fact that I scumslipped about the number of Chimes, and I in fact never stated a number of Chimes, your argument would then be invalid, would it not?
1. ?????????? (the heck w/ your response????!?!? [this is rhetorical])
2. Ok, now that I've calmed down a bit. The quotes I pulled were sequential in nature. TMCT asked TCM a question, specifically regarding the # of Chimes. You respond to TMCT quoting rule 5. My interpretation is that you quoted them, saying that the rule would answer his question on the number of chimes. Are you saying that you did not reply to that question made by TMCT using Rule 5? If not, explain your response there. I'll answer your other question given your response.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Ask the right questions in the right way and truth is inevitable."
—Lazav
Also, Unvote: CantripMancer (RVS VOTE); Vote Arianrhod I don't like your barn of Shark's vote on me and your current back and forth with Kosa doesn't look to good for you either.
I owe you an apology. I misread your "losing" line -- I thought that you had said that "I'm annoyed to be losing this game," not the as-written "I'd be annoyed to lose." I actually didn't notice until I went back to directly quote it...then I was like....welp.
Also, your transparent style of posting is in my opinion, not in my experience, If that makes sense. Like, I tried to approach Ataghan from the perspective of / belief that I was town -- and that was the impression I got of you, regardless of whether I knew your alignment or not. Take that for what you will.
Shouldn't your opinion be intrinsically related to your experience? How and why it isn't? Also, why was your "misread" enough reason for you to unvote me if you've /barned Rhand in an earlier post about my perceived lack of transparency?
@TCM: Don't see anything raising alarms on KK right now. So still town.
@TMCT: Can I say that EtR was scummier than TCM? :P.
Seriously, look up to that point in the game. Can you say that TCM was scummier than EtR? Both made what I call a slip at the time and I only have 1 vote. So I'm going to vote the scummier one. TCM was at least actively doing something (serious vote). I'm going to hold reservation on him until I see reasoning. Though if you told me right now what that reason was, I couldn't tell you cause I forgot. But yeah. EtR was scummier there.
Also, it could be a TCM scumslip, but given his justification on his thought process, as well as my town position on him, it isnt as strong of a slip as it was at the time (townier w/ time).
@AtheistGod: Thanks. I was thinking along the same lines. I dont expect EtR to blatantly not understand, so I expected that he was intentionally doing it to get me to slip somewhere where he could jump out of the defense. Given the recent posts, I see his direction now. He's basically going on the technicality that because he never said there were 4 chimes or 5 chimes or 20 chimes, that he never slipped. He's hoping that by him not saying it, he's in the clear, but I disagree highly.
@Misting: I think scumchat exists. It's a League game, so having a scumteam w/o coordination would be terrible. It's more that I dropped it because I think there's little chance that the scumchat is without a chat.
@Cyouni:
-Reason I didn't like your initial response to the situation: I dislike when players say "Do explain". It's feels like they are trying to be more helpful that they actually are. It reads as fluff, non-progressive, and keeps a neutral position.
-Reason I didn't like hawks post as it just felt like he wasn't reading at the time. But I reconsidered his position and took it as a new player trying to get into the flow of things.
-Also, yes I'm tunneling, let me finish it.
@EtR: Now when you're finished answering the previous post, answer this:
"5. Each dead Chime increases the time it takes for them to win by 1 Day. With all of them alive it will take them 4 Days to win. If at the end of Day 4 they are all alive they have won. Chimes do not have a mafia nightkill (you know since they aren't mafia)."
@EtR
So guard told you that 5 chime exist? or was TCM correct with the 4 chime 1 sk? Sorry, I want this answer to be crystal clear if you know it.
It was part of the rules from the Original Post. Full rules here for clarity.
Special Rules:
1. If you have an item it may be passed to a player of your choice at night. You may pass only one item per night and passing counts as a night action.
2. Items in this game are ammo that is required to use an ability. Different abilities require different items to use. Most abilities require ammo.
3. You may only perform one night action each night.
4. If you kill or are the lynching vote on a player with an item you get the item they were holding.
5. Each dead Chime increases the time it takes for them to win by 1 Day. With all of them alive it will take them 4 Days to win. If at the end of Day 4 they are all alive they have won. Chimes do not have a mafia nightkill (you know since they aren't mafia).
6. There is no mafia, so the town has that going for them.
7. Watch out for the Serial Killer (and be sure to protect your Lucky Charms).
8. Town names appear in royal blue and their win condition is: “All anti-town forces are dead.”
9. Don’t directly quote your PM or discuss formatting, that will draw my ire and will result in modkills.
10. Don’t use the Thank You function. If it is being used and becomes a problem I will modkill for using it.
This quote, you were DIRECTLY asked the question as to why 5 chimes or 4 chime/1 sk exist. You DIRECTLY replied back with Rule 5 as well as the rest of the rules. So WHY DID YOU RESPOND WITH THE RULES!?!?!?
@Everyone else: Do any of you guys see what's wrong with EtR's responses to TMCT and 7hawk77????
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Ask the right questions in the right way and truth is inevitable."
—Lazav
I quoted the rule to show where you could derive the information from. I never provided an opinion on how many chimes I think there are.
???????
Why would you do this? It does absolutely nothing! It is not helping town at all. Why quote the rules if it isn't going to answer the question? It's basically making the situation more confusing as it promotes misinformation (the rules tells the # of chimes). Why wouldn't you provide your opinion on this while quoting this (BOTH times)?
I don't buy your responses at all.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Ask the right questions in the right way and truth is inevitable."
—Lazav
Jesus - are you reading anything? For the THIRD time:
Hawk asked me what Guardman said VIA PM. Guardman did not send me a PM. What I originally posted was from the rules. To be sure that Hawk understood this I copied all of the rules because Guardman DID NOT PM ME ANYTHING. It was for clarity.
I quoted the rule to show where you could derive the information from. I never provided an opinion on how many chimes I think there are.
???????
Why would you do this? It does absolutely nothing! It is not helping town at all. Why quote the rules if it isn't going to answer the question? It's basically making the situation more confusing as it promotes misinformation (the rules tells the # of chimes). Why wouldn't you provide your opinion on this while quoting this (BOTH times)?
I don't buy your responses at all.
I didn't say how many I thought there were because I have no idea how many there are. I quoted the rules because that's where we all need to start to figure this out. Tell me though, if I'm scum, how does this advance my position? What would the gain be?
Because as scum, you want to see me mislynched, or because as town, you believe that I am scum, and therefore you want to see things that fit with your worldview.
That's not an answer. Why?
How is it not an answer? He feels that I'm looking for an easy lynch. Shark and Rhand have made points that I agreed with, and then I added my own viewpoint onto them. I fail to see the connection between the two, so my reply is naturally somewhat droll.
That's quite an interesting twist you're giving my post. If you had actually taken the time to read what happened instead of jumping to conclusions based on the fact that I reposted the rules, you would see that Hawk thought that I had gotten this information from Guardman himself. I posted what I did and clearly stated that it was from the original post so that there would be no confusion on Hawk's part as I also assumed that he was new-ish.
How you can possibly try and slant that as a negative is beyond me. The only conclusion that I can come to is that you are simply not reading what is happening here.
Note a few things.
There is no thought of Shark as scum - the "only conclusion" is that Shark's "simply not reading". This is confirmed by "jumping to conclusions", where Shark didn't "read what happened".
If my mindset is inconsistent, which it may very well be, it's because I'm trying to figure out Shark's angle. I want to believe that he's just decided to bulldog this and is town, but the way he's 1) avoided certain questions and 2) twisted what has occurred, is giving me second thoughts.
Oh? You go from thinking he's town in #88, to scum in #92, and then back to town in #122:
If my post contained nothing useful, how exactly was it a slip? Where did I say what number of chimes there were? And it's cute that you are making assumptions for me. Instead of, you know, reading what I said. I quoted the rules in full because Hawk thought that I got the information from Gman. I didn't want him operating under a false assumption.
I'd love to hear what changed your mind from the "only conclusion" in two hours/three posts.
I don't really understand what you are seeing as a difference between the two. Can you clarify for me?
That's post #122 there.
I refer to posts #88 and #92, linked in the quote.
In post #88, your syntax refers to Shark as town.
In post #92, it refers to Shark as scum.
There is a difference of two hours/three posts. I'd love to hear what changed in that time.
@Cyouni - I don't know if I can answer that. I still don't know which alignment Shark is so if my syntax is switching it has to be a subconcious thing. Right now, for example, I have him as leaning town due to the weak /barn that Arianrhod did.
Rhand
The "weird" vibes that you are getting from KK, would you please explain why this is scumKK compared to townKK? And why you belive this to be a scum mindset?
I can't compare to scumkk, but the confidence with which he posts and the involvement he shows are not the townkk that I know.
His posts come off as too calculated.
Why is this a scum mind set and not a town mind set?
You didn't answer sufficently enough.
TownKK is more spontaneous. He always comes off as scummy in his early game. I have the impression that he's too consciously trying not to do that.
I can't compare to scumkk, but the confidence with which he posts and the involvement he shows are not the townkk that I know.
His posts come off as too calculated.
@Rhand, Do you think he is more confident or less confident?
I asked this to Rhand and I expect a response, I would also like a response from you
@Arianhad
Do you think Kosa is more or less confidant this game than usual?
Also, your transparent style of posting is in my opinion, not in my experience, If that makes sense. Like, I tried to approach Ataghan from the perspective of / belief that I was town -- and that was the impression I got of you, regardless of whether I knew your alignment or not. Take that for what you will.
Shouldn't your opinion be intrinsically related to your experience? How and why it isn't? Also, why was your "misread" enough reason for you to unvote me if you've /barned Rhand in an earlier post about my perceived lack of transparency?
This might get too philosophical, but I don't see opinion as necessarily coming out of experience. Experience can shape opinions, but is not a prerequisite thereof.
Let's say I have the opinion that I don't like peppers (I do -- I hate spicy food). Now let's say someone sneaks me a pepper and I don't realize it. Now, depending on the variety of that pepper, I will likely have one of two reactions: confirm opinion, if spicy pepper; or disprove opinion, if less-than-spicy pepper. Now my opinion for the future will be informed by my experience.
This is exactly what I'm saying with you.
I had an opinion: Kosa posts transparently / spontaneously [to borrow Rhand's language]
I had an experience: Kosa is town [because I was scum in Ataghan].
This informs my opinion that when Kosa is town, he posts transparently.
Now, here I don't know your alignment. But I see you posting less transparently, which tells me that you alignment may be different than my last experience of you.
Does that make more sense than my last attempt?
As for why my misread was enough to unvote you, I don't think that "just" you posting differently is a strong enough reason for a vote by itself. Now, if you were posting differently -and- you were under the impression that you were already losing just because you had a slight bit of pressure, then THAT is enough for a vote. But that wasn't actually the case.
---------
@Eron -- I've never seen scum!Kosa, so I can't say for sure. If I were to guess, I would imagine him has being more confidant (due to the concept of having a team behind you rather than going it solo -- was my experience in Ataghan at first, until we immediately fell apart), as well as more quick to react to pressure (guilty conscience). This is why I thought I had a good lead on him, because that's how I perceived him as reacting.
@Rhand/Arian
If you can't figure out why Kosa is more calculated this game, maybe you should look in to his earlier response much more carefully. It was apparent to me but I was also involved in that game.
Being confident != being correct. Check out what I just have done with Iso and TMCT in Steins;Gate's last Day...
@Arian
Your argument against Kosa is a rational fallacy which can be disproved with Bayes theorem.
Just because rain causes the ground to be wet 100% of the time doesn't mean that if you see wet ground, the cause is rain. It could be a sprinkler or dog pee. Outside factors exist and it is very difficult to try and dumb down and exclude other outside factors.
Substitute Rain with being town and wet ground with being transparent. An outside factor which you didn't account for could be Kosa's personal experience with S;G.
Rhand
The "weird" vibes that you are getting from KK, would you please explain why this is scumKK compared to townKK? And why you belive this to be a scum mindset?
I can't compare to scumkk, but the confidence with which he posts and the involvement he shows are not the townkk that I know.
His posts come off as too calculated.
Why is this a scum mind set and not a town mind set?
You didn't answer sufficently enough.
TownKK is more spontaneous. He always comes off as scummy in his early game. I have the impression that he's too consciously trying not to do that.
I'm happy that you can apply a meta read to KK, but that is not what I am askinf for. Meta =/= mind set. Leave out other games and focus on this game for this question for a moment. Then explain why this is a scum mind set.
Jesus - are you reading anything? For the THIRD time:
Hawk asked me what Guardman said VIA PM. Guardman did not send me a PM. What I originally posted was from the rules. To be sure that Hawk understood this I copied all of the rules because Guardman DID NOT PM ME ANYTHING. It was for clarity.
I quoted the rule to show where you could derive the information from. I never provided an opinion on how many chimes I think there are.
???????
Why would you do this? It does absolutely nothing! It is not helping town at all. Why quote the rules if it isn't going to answer the question? It's basically making the situation more confusing as it promotes misinformation (the rules tells the # of chimes). Why wouldn't you provide your opinion on this while quoting this (BOTH times)?
I don't buy your responses at all.
I didn't say how many I thought there were because I have no idea how many there are. I quoted the rules because that's where we all need to start to figure this out. Tell me though, if I'm scum, how does this advance my position? What would the gain be?
I'm literally staring at those posts again and I really still dont understand them at all. I can see your rationale, but it's like you didn't do enough for me to actually believe it.
Like, in TMCT's, you could have said something like "For clarity:" or in 7hawk77's you could have said something like "guardman didn't tell me anything. Everything i know is from the rules".
It just feels all sorts of wrong. I'm trying to wrap my brain around it, but I cannot see enough for me to say those posts come from a town-mindset because I'd have done them differently.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Ask the right questions in the right way and truth is inevitable."
—Lazav
:rate4.5:Hawk (interaction w/ EtR, reading new town)
:rate4:Kosa (scumchat question)
:rate4:TCM (town play overall + started killing RVS)
:rate4:Void (Active scumhunting, looks town)
:rate4:AE (Interaction w/ TCMT)
:rate3.5:TMCT (Interaction w/ AE, looked less townie than AE)
:rate3:Cyouni (slight town feel atm)
:rate3:AR (slight town feel atm)
:rate2:All not mentioned (need more from, nothing strong one way or another).
:rate1:EtR (Currently I'm more confused that I can't accurately judge him. Not clearcut scum, but still best lynch choice thus far).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Ask the right questions in the right way and truth is inevitable."
—Lazav
@Shark: k, pretty much the response I was looking for
@Void: Hawk was the subject of a recent argument, so it seemed prudent to give my opinion on him, whereas other neutral could remain assumed. Now, though...
@Arian
Your argument against Kosa is a rational fallacy which can be disproved with Bayes theorem.
Just because rain causes the ground to be wet 100% of the time doesn't mean that if you see wet ground, the cause is rain. It could be a sprinkler or dog pee. Outside factors exist and it is very difficult to try and dumb down and exclude other outside factors.
Substitute Rain with being town and wet ground with being transparent. An outside factor which you didn't account for could be Kosa's personal experience with S;G.
What you have just said is merely an extended explanation of why meta alone is not a reason to lynch someone (usually). People change, yes. But it's as good a place as any to apply pressure, especially early. This whole response feels forced and overexplained to me.
I disagreed with his second barn so I called him out on it. As far as the over explanation, last time I did something like this, I ended up just confusing the majority of players so I wanted to dumb it down. It was more meant to be condescending than anything.
Explain your feels to me. How is it forced, why is over explaining bad?
I disagreed with his second barn so I called him out on it. As far as the over explanation, last time I did something like this, I ended up just confusing the majority of players so I wanted to dumb it down. It was more meant to be condescending than anything.
Explain your feels to me. How is it forced, why is over explaining bad?
Also, would you mind giving a T/S List?
Why would you ever -want- to be condescending? If you're trying to piss me off, you're going to have to try harder than that lol.
Not condescending to you specifically, anyone who didn't understand. Basically I didn't want to explain myself fully but felt the need so it came off that way.
This might get too philosophical, but I don't see opinion as necessarily coming out of experience. Experience can shape opinions, but is not a prerequisite thereof.
Let's say I have the opinion that I don't like peppers (I do -- I hate spicy food). Now let's say someone sneaks me a pepper and I don't realize it. Now, depending on the variety of that pepper, I will likely have one of two reactions: confirm opinion, if spicy pepper; or disprove opinion, if less-than-spicy pepper. Now my opinion for the future will be informed by my experience.
This is exactly what I'm saying with you.
If you prove a less-than-spicy pepper and you like it, then either 1) Your original opinion was that you didn't like spicy peppers, or 2) You had to yourself that you didn't like peppers without even trying them first. This is flawed argument at its source.
I had an opinion: Kosa posts transparently / spontaneously [to borrow Rhand's language]
I had an experience: Kosa is town [because I was scum in Ataghan].
This informs my opinion that when Kosa is town, he posts transparently.
Now, here I don't know your alignment. But I see you posting less transparently, which tells me that you alignment may be different than my last experience of you.
@Eron -- I've never seen scum!Kosa, so I can't say for sure. If I were to guess, I would imagine him has being more confidant (due to the concept of having a team behind you rather than going it solo -- was my experience in Ataghan at first, until we immediately fell apart), as well as more quick to react to pressure (guilty conscience). This is why I thought I had a good lead on him, because that's how I perceived him as reacting.
Bold #1: I always have a team behind me. It's called town. The only one solo here is the SK. Are you the SK?
Bold #2: I'm well aware of Seppel's Rules to Win as Mafia. As scum, I would handwave early votes on me, if not ignore them.
Now, here's a funny thing. You want to meta me? Then I'll be glad to meta you back:
Last time, you were scum and I caught you in a slip:
If I'm coming off as noncommittal right now, I apologize. I don't have a bunch of firm scum suspects that I can be ramming down everyone's throat. Nobody wants to move on Asenion. I was all a-fire for DRey, but now DRey is Seppel, and Seppel's giving me town vibes just as much as DRey gave me scum, so I have no idea what the hell to do with that. I'm still waiting for an answer from Seppel from a few pages back before I'm willing to move on Caex. There's probably something going on between Tan and Eco, but we can't figure that out with what we know now, and I expect a third party involvement.
So, yeah. I'm mostly trying to figure things out in my own head before I go pontificating them to the masses. Pending Seppel's reply, I'm willing to get on the Caex wagon, but I want to see that first.
The emboldened statements are at odds with each other. No "firm scum suspects" yet you're "willing to get on the Caex wagon"? I can't help but read this as you looking for a reason to get on Caex's wagon just to ensure he's lynched. If you want to join the wagon join because you think Caex is scum; if you don't think he's scum then don't get on the wagon.
Caex isn't a firm suspect. That does not mean he is not a suspect. I'm slowly coming around to the idea of him as scum, but my favorable impression of him from earlier in the game is getting in my way. A few Days ago, he was one of if not my strongest town read. If I was like SURE LET'S LYNCH HIM, then that would be more damning IMO, because then it would be as though my earlier reads were merely contrived, which is something that scum would do.
Also, I don't like how you're interpreting my post. You say that I'm contradicting myself, but I don't see any contradiction inherent. If I said that I don't have any firm scum suspects, then sure, fine. But I didn't. I said that I don't have a bunch of firm scum suspects. Semantics, I know, but where for you this is a logic game, for me, it's a language game.
You know what? Let's play the language game, then.
After reading your post, I felt the whole "I may join Caex's wagon anytime soon" thing strange. However, what stuck out the most for me was the part immediatly following the first bold sentence by Nis: A townie isn't supposed to ram scum suspects down anyone's throats.
A townie is supposed to analyze behavior, catch contradictions and then present his/her point in a coherent manner so people can agree with it or point out what is wrong with it. The alignment that wants to force feed "scum suspects" down someone else's esophagus instead of using rationale is scum itself, since their whole argumentation is based on "truths".
The way you put that sentence together implies that you are simply wanting for wagons to be formed so you can shove them directly to the town's unwilling bowels. If you were a townie, you would never even consider ramming scum suspects down people's throats because the act of doing it is simply anti-town.
Vote SilverSihhe
And then you tried to justify yourself with the very same crappy pseudo-philosophical rhetoric you are attempting now:
I honestly missed it, Kosa. I thought there was one where someone had voted me, but I ended up figuring that it was just Arnnaria's post because I didn't see it when I went back through looking for the things I wanted to hit multiquote on.
If I'm coming off as noncommittal right now, I apologize. I don't have a bunch of firm scum suspects that I can be ramming down everyone's throat. Nobody wants to move on Asenion. I was all a-fire for DRey, but now DRey is Seppel, and Seppel's giving me town vibes just as much as DRey gave me scum, so I have no idea what the hell to do with that. I'm still waiting for an answer from Seppel from a few pages back before I'm willing to move on Caex. There's probably something going on between Tan and Eco, but we can't figure that out with what we know now, and I expect a third party involvement.
So, yeah. I'm mostly trying to figure things out in my own head before I go pontificating them to the masses. Pending Seppel's reply, I'm willing to get on the Caex wagon, but I want to see that first.
The emboldened statements are at odds with each other. No "firm scum suspects" yet you're "willing to get on the Caex wagon"? I can't help but read this as you looking for a reason to get on Caex's wagon just to ensure he's lynched. If you want to join the wagon join because you think Caex is scum; if you don't think he's scum then don't get on the wagon.
Caex isn't a firm suspect. That does not mean he is not a suspect. I'm slowly coming around to the idea of him as scum, but my favorable impression of him from earlier in the game is getting in my way. A few Days ago, he was one of if not my strongest town read. If I was like SURE LET'S LYNCH HIM, then that would be more damning IMO, because then it would be as though my earlier reads were merely contrived, which is something that scum would do.
Also, I don't like how you're interpreting my post. You say that I'm contradicting myself, but I don't see any contradiction inherent. If I said that I don't have any firm scum suspects, then sure, fine. But I didn't. I said that I don't have a bunch of firm scum suspects. Semantics, I know, but where for you this is a logic game, for me, it's a language game.
You know what? Let's play the language game, then.
After reading your post, I felt the whole "I may join Caex's wagon anytime soon" thing strange. However, what stuck out the most for me was the part immediatly following the first bold sentence by Nis: A townie isn't supposed to ram scum suspects down anyone's throats.
A townie is supposed to analyze behavior, catch contradictions and then present his/her point in a coherent manner so people can agree with it or point out what is wrong with it. The alignment that wants to force feed "scum suspects" down someone else's esophagus instead of using rationale is scum itself, since their whole argumentation is based on "truths".
The way you put that sentence together implies that you are simply wanting for wagons to be formed so you can shove them directly to the town's unwilling bowels. If you were a townie, you would never even consider ramming scum suspects down people's throats because the act of doing it is simply anti-town.
Vote SilverSihhe
On the contrary, I believe that's exactly how the game plays out@ramming suspects down peoples' throats.
Allow me to explain.
Here's how I see mafia. I believe that by explaining my paradigm, you will understand what I mean.
In a game of Mafia, you have an arbitrary number of people, some of which are town, and some of which are non-town, of some variety. Each town player doesn't know who else is town: they only know themselves (or, if there's a Mason, but that's an exception). It is up to each player to decide who is town, and who is scum. By doing so, each town player forms a worldview. They believe that players A, B, and C are town like them, and that players X and Y are scum, with a few K, L, and Ms in between.
As such, I see the game, in its later stages, as not so much about scumhunting or sifting through attempted motivations or dissolving logic puzzles, although there are elements of all of these things, but rather about who can capitalize on the soapbox the best. Who can force their worldview upon the others. Usually, the best way to do this is via skillful use of language -- you want to persuade people that your view is, in fact, their view. This results in votes and lynches.
To put this in context, I had a certain worldview. I had my opinions of who was scum, and who was town, and then recent revelations threw that all in flux. My worldview was shaken, so I had to reevaluate and come up with a new one. Some pieces of the old fit in, some didn't. If you look back at my body of play, you'll see that this is how I tend to operate. I'll go strong for a while, then new information will occur and I'll be quiet for a few days while I reintegrate that information and revalidate or reimagine my worldview. Then I'll be good again, and so on.
So, yeah. Where you think that the game is about "analyze behavior, catch contradictions and then present his/her point in a coherent manner so people can agree with it or point out what is wrong with it," I think that those are tools which are used to persuade people that your worldview is the correct one, and your scumspects, the correct targets. Obviously everyone else is doing this too, which results in this wonderful dialogue between competing worldviews -- to say nothing of what the scum and neutrals are doing. It's this great cacophony of language.
I don't think either of us is necessarily right or wrong -- it's just how I view the game, and just how you view the game.
As for waiting for wagons to form, that's really not why I paused at all, as mentioned above. Indeed, I don't think that anyone else actually voted Caex while I was waiting for my reply from Seppel and adjusting. So....I'm not seeing what you're seeing, I guess =/
Aside from our philosophical differences, why else are you voting me?
I didn't buy it last time and I was right. Guess what? I'll say again to you the same thing I said in Ataghan:
I think that it's more of a case that with your personality and mine, I'm more inclined to get into these kind of discussions with you, since I don't really wax philosophical when I'm talking to anyone else.
Town is always, always, always alone. I don't know how you can think otherwise. Unless you're confirmed town, then I guess it's a different story. But until such time as you are somehow confirmed, you are constantly at risk of getting lynched by your fellow townies on the back of poor play of your own, or convincing arguments by the scum. I hold this truth as absolute.
EBWODP: "If you prove", the first sentence of the my post, should be "if you taste". "Prove" can mean either "prove it" or "taste it" in portuguese, lol.
Nice handwave, but dismissing my other points will not make them disappear.
You don't even -have- any points. Nor does Hawk, or Eron. Okay, fine, you don't like me. Consider how many times I've been near-lynched on Day 1 (I think every single game I've played in, except two). You're not alone. But philosophical disagreements isn't enough to warrant a lynch. Gut feelings isn't enough. It's enough for pressure, sure, but you're gonna need to provide something to go off of beyond that. And then I'll respond, and everyone will hate me more, and I'll claim, and then I'll either get lynched or go on with the rest of the game. Not like I haven't been through this cycle before.
KK
I'm having trouble following you on your Arianrhod case. Would you please more specific on what "behavioral tell" Arianrhod has commited?
1) He barns Rhand saying that, in his experience, I post very transparently and without putting much thought on it, which is not what he's seeing here. Asks me about what I think of it. As a side point, he textbook answers a legit question by hawk.
2) I disagree, and he smears me for being defeatist. Says I'm very relaxed when I'm town.
3) I confront him about how flawed it is for him to believe I'm transparent as town when he has only one game as basis for comparisons, in which he was scum.
4) He backs off, supposedly for misreading my post. But in his way out, gives a bad justification as why he considers me transparent "in his opinion, not his experience".
5) I push him more. How are his opinions not the same as his experience? Why is he achieving conclusions based on things he couldn't possible know?
6) He answers by delving into (flawed) philosophy. Now here's the big thing: he did the very same thing as scum when I got him in Ataghan.
EWP: @Silver: Oh but I do have. You can't simply dismiss my metacall on you by saying you "I only do it with you!". And it's not even a matter of philosophical disagreements: all your philosophical rhetoric to me in Ataghan was bull, as you had indeed scumslipped. I've pointed out flaws in your logic here as well. Why wouldn't I think you're cornered and are attempting the same thing?
(Btw just for clarification, I like you very much as a player, especially your politeness).
Nice handwave, but dismissing my other points will not make them disappear.
You don't even -have- any points. Nor does Hawk, or Eron. Okay, fine, you don't like me. Consider how many times I've been near-lynched on Day 1 (I think every single game I've played in, except two). You're not alone. But philosophical disagreements isn't enough to warrant a lynch. Gut feelings isn't enough. It's enough for pressure, sure, but you're gonna need to provide something to go off of beyond that. And then I'll respond, and everyone will hate me more, and I'll claim, and then I'll either get lynched or go on with the rest of the game. Not like I haven't been through this cycle before.
Bolded: Now you're being the same thing you claimed to have perceived on me: you are overly reacting to pressure. No one is lynching you yet. My case on you isn't based off "gut feelings". You're almost telling us we need to provide something else to prove your guilty because you are guilty but we still don't have enough.
I literally just pointed out that Arian shouldn't do this. Go reread my Bayes Theorem post
Nope. Roughly speaking, what Arian did was "I've seen him do X while being Y, therefore when he doesn't, he probably isn't Y!", while what I did was "I've seen him do X while being Y, and I'm seeing it again here, so he's probably Y!" :teach::teach:
They're similar in theory, but in Mafia they're far from being the same thing.
You're both twisting the intentions of my post.
I'm impressed. Pretty much nobody actually knows where my username comes from without me telling them first. Good stuff
-------------
I'm actually going to /barn Rhand regarding Kosa. In my experience, town!Kosa tends to post very transparently -- he's very similar to me in that regard. He just kind of says what's on his mind and doesn't really give the impression that he has any kind of plan. This Kosa feels like he's put much more thought into what he's saying.
More pressure on Eron, Kosa, and Hawk IMO -- all three are good leads.
I'm not disregarding voting scummy people. I had 3 people that I thought were scummy, I had my vote on one and my FoS on another. I guess the way I stated it was pretty bad because I made it sound like my vote was only staying there because of RVS when I had my reasons to leave it there.
No I didn't want to unvote shark at the time, I thought his attack was bad.
I will unvote now considering the argument against Eron slipping is invalid and I think Cyouni put it best that bad does not equal scum. I guess I should just take sharks opener as the normal here.
Unvote
@Arianrhod
So you barned shark earlier, you are now barning rhand. Why do I get the feeling that you are trying really hard to find the easiest lynch?
Outdated Mafia Stats
Because as scum, you want to see me mislynched, or because as town, you believe that I am scum, and therefore you want to see things that fit with your worldview.
If I were just saying /barn and letting it go at that, without adding any of my own reasoning or thoughts on the point that I'm agreeing with, then you would have something. But that's not what I'm doing.
I'm really confused at your reasoning for unvoting. Can you spell it out a bit better?
Like I said earlier, your shark barn rubbed me the wrong way. I am suspicious of you so I will notice things you do.
As far as Kosa goes I disagree with you and Rhand. I don't think he is acting that much differently other than metagaming which I think will naturally happen after playing games with the same people.
@Levine:
Hop in, the waters fine
Outdated Mafia Stats
Why is this a scum mind set and not a town mind set?
You didn't answer sufficently enough.
@Rhand, Do you think he is more confident or less confident?
Outdated Mafia Stats
Dat textbook response huh
IIRC, this is my 7th game here. For seven consecutive times, random.org has cockblocked a big "NO!" in my face to my presence in a scum team. When I finally get to be scum, you can be sure that I will either lose by being nailed in my first post or win by being widely considered "obvtown" up to the endgame quickhammer
Why are the two being compared? There's no reason for it.
Ended up looking it up a while ago for unrelated reasons.
That's not an answer. Why?
I laughed.
I'm intrigued. Where did you run across the name? She's not a commonly-used figure.
How is it not an answer? He feels that I'm looking for an easy lynch. Shark and Rhand have made points that I agreed with, and then I added my own viewpoint onto them. I fail to see the connection between the two, so my reply is naturally somewhat droll.
@Kosa: assuming you're telling the truth, I feel your pain. Ataghan's still my only scum game, and I've found myself actively wanting to get rolled on the scum team so I can practice that aspect of my game more =/
Also @Kosa, what do you think of Hawk thusfar, and what do you think of Rhand's (and my) accusation that you seem to be posting with a degree of intent as opposed to your usual transparent style?
Rhand is a fairly good player to be randomly throwing out that accusation as scum. For me, it reads more as if he's trying to test people and generate content. If he's town and really believes in what he posted, I can sort of see where he's coming from. We've played only two games together, Innistrad and Vanilla 2. In Innistrad, of course I was being transparent because when he had joined in, I was almost being mislynched on D1, more than 2 weeks away from the deadline, for claiming what I really was (VT). In Vanilla, well, I rogue-hammered him because hey, let's do it
Of course I'm posting with a degree of intent. This is a League game and I'd be particularly annoyed by losing this one, especially if my bad reads contribute to it. And of course I have a plan! Who doesn't? For me, the whole point of the game is to support the good plans and track down the bad plans in a bloody fashion
Do you consider me transparent? I normally put so much effort in thinking before posting...
That....that is a psyduck with a jitte. How did I not know that this existed previously
Why do you say that you're losing already? Just because you're being questioned hardly means that you're losing. You seem very needlessly touchy here -- why go into an offshoot rant about your mafia-playing philosophy?
I never have a plan when I play mafia -- at the very least, as town. I just kind of ride the waves, poke some people with sticks, and see what falls out. Then somewhere along the way I form opinions about people, and then I go from there once I have opinions.
And yes, I do normally consider you to be quite transparent. You usually come across as very relaxed when you're town, which is not the feeling that I'm getting from you right now.
Something isn't adding up here.
Unvote. Vote Kosa.
Don't you dare mess with ninja duck
I didn't say I'm losing. I said, in response to your intent question, that I'm trying to pay more attention to this game because it's a League one and I don't want to lose this.
Therefore that's your plan. You do have one.
Yeah, something really isn't. For example, you stating that I'm "quite transparent" despite having played only one game with me (Ataghan), in which you were scum, so obviously I was transparent to you. That is no basis of comparison whatsoever as you should know. Makes me wonder about what you're trying to accomplish here.
I owe you an apology. I misread your "losing" line -- I thought that you had said that "I'm annoyed to be losing this game," not the as-written "I'd be annoyed to lose." I actually didn't notice until I went back to directly quote it...then I was like....welp.
And yes, my plan is to never have a plan! Plan around that plan, man!
Also, your transparent style of posting is in my opinion, not in my experience, If that makes sense. Like, I tried to approach Ataghan from the perspective of / belief that I was town -- and that was the impression I got of you, regardless of whether I knew your alignment or not. Take that for what you will.
Either way, again, my apologies for misreading your post.
Unvote.
I don't really understand what you are seeing as a difference between the two. Can you clarify for me?
Because to me there is a difference that seems to be overlooked here. Shark is claiming that both TCM and I scum slipped. Well...At least he was claiming both of us were. Now it seems that he thinks only I scum slipped.
Anyway, If I was pointing out to you where I believed that TCM derived his info from, that isn't the same as me agreeing to how many Chimes there are. Shark seems to think that I slipped, but if I never gave a number, how could I have? You could infer that I was agreeing with TCM, but even if I was, the end result is that TCM is the one that actually gave the number. If the person that provided the number didn't slip (in Shark's opinion) how could the person that quoted where the information could be derived from be considered the one that slipped? It doesn't add up and it further demonstrates the inconsistency of Shark's mindset.
Additionally, the fact that he is attempting to further his cause of pushing against me by stating that it's scummy that I quoted the rules to back my position, when I never took a position in the first place shows that he is looking for something to stick.
I think it also speaks poorly of The Artist Formerly Known As Silver that he barned the argument.
How does ScumKosa post, in your opinion?
Also, Unvote: CantripMancer (RVS VOTE); Vote Arianrhod I don't like your barn of Shark's vote on me and your current back and forth with Kosa doesn't look to good for you either.
@Arianhad
Do you think Kosa is more or less confidant this game than usual?
Outdated Mafia Stats
1. ?????????? (the heck w/ your response????!?!? [this is rhetorical])
2. Ok, now that I've calmed down a bit. The quotes I pulled were sequential in nature. TMCT asked TCM a question, specifically regarding the # of Chimes. You respond to TMCT quoting rule 5. My interpretation is that you quoted them, saying that the rule would answer his question on the number of chimes. Are you saying that you did not reply to that question made by TMCT using Rule 5? If not, explain your response there. I'll answer your other question given your response.
—Lazav
_______________________________________________
Mafia Stats
Summary:
Total Win %: 40%
Total Scum Win %: 60%
Total Town Win %: 20%
Total Neutral Win %: 0%
unvote
Going to look back on this and reread Rhand.
They hate us cause they ain't us.
I see. But I have myopia, so bear with me.
I herd you like a plan. So we can plan on your plan so you plan while you plan.
Shouldn't your opinion be intrinsically related to your experience? How and why it isn't? Also, why was your "misread" enough reason for you to unvote me if you've /barned Rhand in an earlier post about my perceived lack of transparency?
Sure! Apologies accepted
Unvote
Vote Arianrhod
@TMCT: Can I say that EtR was scummier than TCM? :P.
Seriously, look up to that point in the game. Can you say that TCM was scummier than EtR? Both made what I call a slip at the time and I only have 1 vote. So I'm going to vote the scummier one. TCM was at least actively doing something (serious vote). I'm going to hold reservation on him until I see reasoning. Though if you told me right now what that reason was, I couldn't tell you cause I forgot. But yeah. EtR was scummier there.
Also, it could be a TCM scumslip, but given his justification on his thought process, as well as my town position on him, it isnt as strong of a slip as it was at the time (townier w/ time).
@AtheistGod: Thanks. I was thinking along the same lines. I dont expect EtR to blatantly not understand, so I expected that he was intentionally doing it to get me to slip somewhere where he could jump out of the defense. Given the recent posts, I see his direction now. He's basically going on the technicality that because he never said there were 4 chimes or 5 chimes or 20 chimes, that he never slipped. He's hoping that by him not saying it, he's in the clear, but I disagree highly.
@Misting: I think scumchat exists. It's a League game, so having a scumteam w/o coordination would be terrible. It's more that I dropped it because I think there's little chance that the scumchat is without a chat.
@Cyouni:
-Reason I didn't like your initial response to the situation: I dislike when players say "Do explain". It's feels like they are trying to be more helpful that they actually are. It reads as fluff, non-progressive, and keeps a neutral position.
-Reason I didn't like hawks post as it just felt like he wasn't reading at the time. But I reconsidered his position and took it as a new player trying to get into the flow of things.
-Also, yes I'm tunneling, let me finish it.
@EtR: Now when you're finished answering the previous post, answer this:
This quote, you were DIRECTLY asked the question as to why 5 chimes or 4 chime/1 sk exist. You DIRECTLY replied back with Rule 5 as well as the rest of the rules. So WHY DID YOU RESPOND WITH THE RULES!?!?!?
@Everyone else: Do any of you guys see what's wrong with EtR's responses to TMCT and 7hawk77????
—Lazav
_______________________________________________
Mafia Stats
Summary:
Total Win %: 40%
Total Scum Win %: 60%
Total Town Win %: 20%
Total Neutral Win %: 0%
???????
Why would you do this? It does absolutely nothing! It is not helping town at all. Why quote the rules if it isn't going to answer the question? It's basically making the situation more confusing as it promotes misinformation (the rules tells the # of chimes). Why wouldn't you provide your opinion on this while quoting this (BOTH times)?
I don't buy your responses at all.
—Lazav
_______________________________________________
Mafia Stats
Summary:
Total Win %: 40%
Total Scum Win %: 60%
Total Town Win %: 20%
Total Neutral Win %: 0%
Hawk asked me what Guardman said VIA PM. Guardman did not send me a PM. What I originally posted was from the rules. To be sure that Hawk understood this I copied all of the rules because Guardman DID NOT PM ME ANYTHING. It was for clarity.
I didn't say how many I thought there were because I have no idea how many there are. I quoted the rules because that's where we all need to start to figure this out. Tell me though, if I'm scum, how does this advance my position? What would the gain be?
Every game recently has begun to remind me of the horror that was CCMV.
SMT:Persona 2 and the fifth game of the Trails/Kiseki series (don't google it, spoilers).
Hm. Fine.
Why the waffle?
That's post #122 there.
I refer to posts #88 and #92, linked in the quote.
In post #88, your syntax refers to Shark as town.
In post #92, it refers to Shark as scum.
There is a difference of two hours/three posts. I'd love to hear what changed in that time.
@Cyouni - I don't know if I can answer that. I still don't know which alignment Shark is so if my syntax is switching it has to be a subconcious thing. Right now, for example, I have him as leaning town due to the weak /barn that Arianrhod did.
More of a suspicion.
TownKK is more spontaneous. He always comes off as scummy in his early game. I have the impression that he's too consciously trying not to do that.
More confident
That's how I interpreted tcm's question.
he definitely reads as more confidant.
This might get too philosophical, but I don't see opinion as necessarily coming out of experience. Experience can shape opinions, but is not a prerequisite thereof.
Let's say I have the opinion that I don't like peppers (I do -- I hate spicy food). Now let's say someone sneaks me a pepper and I don't realize it. Now, depending on the variety of that pepper, I will likely have one of two reactions: confirm opinion, if spicy pepper; or disprove opinion, if less-than-spicy pepper. Now my opinion for the future will be informed by my experience.
This is exactly what I'm saying with you.
I had an opinion: Kosa posts transparently / spontaneously [to borrow Rhand's language]
I had an experience: Kosa is town [because I was scum in Ataghan].
This informs my opinion that when Kosa is town, he posts transparently.
Now, here I don't know your alignment. But I see you posting less transparently, which tells me that you alignment may be different than my last experience of you.
Does that make more sense than my last attempt?
As for why my misread was enough to unvote you, I don't think that "just" you posting differently is a strong enough reason for a vote by itself. Now, if you were posting differently -and- you were under the impression that you were already losing just because you had a slight bit of pressure, then THAT is enough for a vote. But that wasn't actually the case.
---------
@Eron -- I've never seen scum!Kosa, so I can't say for sure. If I were to guess, I would imagine him has being more confidant (due to the concept of having a team behind you rather than going it solo -- was my experience in Ataghan at first, until we immediately fell apart), as well as more quick to react to pressure (guilty conscience). This is why I thought I had a good lead on him, because that's how I perceived him as reacting.
If you can't figure out why Kosa is more calculated this game, maybe you should look in to his earlier response much more carefully. It was apparent to me but I was also involved in that game.
@Arian
Your argument against Kosa is a rational fallacy which can be disproved with Bayes theorem.
Just because rain causes the ground to be wet 100% of the time doesn't mean that if you see wet ground, the cause is rain. It could be a sprinkler or dog pee. Outside factors exist and it is very difficult to try and dumb down and exclude other outside factors.
Substitute Rain with being town and wet ground with being transparent. An outside factor which you didn't account for could be Kosa's personal experience with S;G.
Outdated Mafia Stats
I'm happy that you can apply a meta read to KK, but that is not what I am askinf for. Meta =/= mind set. Leave out other games and focus on this game for this question for a moment. Then explain why this is a scum mind set.
I'm literally staring at those posts again and I really still dont understand them at all. I can see your rationale, but it's like you didn't do enough for me to actually believe it.
Like, in TMCT's, you could have said something like "For clarity:" or in 7hawk77's you could have said something like "guardman didn't tell me anything. Everything i know is from the rules".
It just feels all sorts of wrong. I'm trying to wrap my brain around it, but I cannot see enough for me to say those posts come from a town-mindset because I'd have done them differently.
—Lazav
_______________________________________________
Mafia Stats
Summary:
Total Win %: 40%
Total Scum Win %: 60%
Total Town Win %: 20%
Total Neutral Win %: 0%
:rate4.5:Hawk (interaction w/ EtR, reading new town)
:rate4:Kosa (scumchat question)
:rate4:TCM (town play overall + started killing RVS)
:rate4:Void (Active scumhunting, looks town)
:rate4:AE (Interaction w/ TCMT)
:rate3.5:TMCT (Interaction w/ AE, looked less townie than AE)
:rate3:Cyouni (slight town feel atm)
:rate3:AR (slight town feel atm)
:rate2:All not mentioned (need more from, nothing strong one way or another).
:rate1:EtR (Currently I'm more confused that I can't accurately judge him. Not clearcut scum, but still best lynch choice thus far).
—Lazav
_______________________________________________
Mafia Stats
Summary:
Total Win %: 40%
Total Scum Win %: 60%
Total Town Win %: 20%
Total Neutral Win %: 0%
EtR (2): SharkFinnigan, Cyouni
Rhand (1): TCM
SharkFinnigan (1) Void
Kosakosa (1): Rhand
Arianrhod (3): EtR, Kosakosa, 7hawk77
With 16 alive, it's 9 to lynch!
Please let us know if anything's incorrect.
Vote Arianrhod
Outdated Mafia Stats
@Void: Hawk was the subject of a recent argument, so it seemed prudent to give my opinion on him, whereas other neutral could remain assumed. Now, though...
What you have just said is merely an extended explanation of why meta alone is not a reason to lynch someone (usually). People change, yes. But it's as good a place as any to apply pressure, especially early. This whole response feels forced and overexplained to me.
Vote: 7hawk77
I disagreed with his second barn so I called him out on it. As far as the over explanation, last time I did something like this, I ended up just confusing the majority of players so I wanted to dumb it down. It was more meant to be condescending than anything.
Explain your feels to me. How is it forced, why is over explaining bad?
Also, would you mind giving a T/S List?
Outdated Mafia Stats
Why would you ever -want- to be condescending? If you're trying to piss me off, you're going to have to try harder than that lol.
Outdated Mafia Stats
If you prove a less-than-spicy pepper and you like it, then either 1) Your original opinion was that you didn't like spicy peppers, or 2) You had to yourself that you didn't like peppers without even trying them first. This is flawed argument at its source.
Bolded sentences explains one another.
Bold #1: I always have a team behind me. It's called town. The only one solo here is the SK. Are you the SK?
Bold #2: I'm well aware of Seppel's Rules to Win as Mafia. As scum, I would handwave early votes on me, if not ignore them.
Now, here's a funny thing. You want to meta me? Then I'll be glad to meta you back:
Last time, you were scum and I caught you in a slip:
And then you tried to justify yourself with the very same crappy pseudo-philosophical rhetoric you are attempting now:
I didn't buy it last time and I was right. Guess what? I'll say again to you the same thing I said in Ataghan:
Switch "language" for "behavioral" and voilà. You're scum.
Town is always, always, always alone. I don't know how you can think otherwise. Unless you're confirmed town, then I guess it's a different story. But until such time as you are somehow confirmed, you are constantly at risk of getting lynched by your fellow townies on the back of poor play of your own, or convincing arguments by the scum. I hold this truth as absolute.
I'm having trouble following you on your Arianrhod case. Would you please more specific on what "behavioral tell" Arianrhod has commited?
You don't even -have- any points. Nor does Hawk, or Eron. Okay, fine, you don't like me. Consider how many times I've been near-lynched on Day 1 (I think every single game I've played in, except two). You're not alone. But philosophical disagreements isn't enough to warrant a lynch. Gut feelings isn't enough. It's enough for pressure, sure, but you're gonna need to provide something to go off of beyond that. And then I'll respond, and everyone will hate me more, and I'll claim, and then I'll either get lynched or go on with the rest of the game. Not like I haven't been through this cycle before.
1) He barns Rhand saying that, in his experience, I post very transparently and without putting much thought on it, which is not what he's seeing here. Asks me about what I think of it. As a side point, he textbook answers a legit question by hawk.
2) I disagree, and he smears me for being defeatist. Says I'm very relaxed when I'm town.
3) I confront him about how flawed it is for him to believe I'm transparent as town when he has only one game as basis for comparisons, in which he was scum.
4) He backs off, supposedly for misreading my post. But in his way out, gives a bad justification as why he considers me transparent "in his opinion, not his experience".
5) I push him more. How are his opinions not the same as his experience? Why is he achieving conclusions based on things he couldn't possible know?
6) He answers by delving into (flawed) philosophy. Now here's the big thing: he did the very same thing as scum when I got him in Ataghan.
EWP: @Silver: Oh but I do have. You can't simply dismiss my metacall on you by saying you "I only do it with you!". And it's not even a matter of philosophical disagreements: all your philosophical rhetoric to me in Ataghan was bull, as you had indeed scumslipped. I've pointed out flaws in your logic here as well. Why wouldn't I think you're cornered and are attempting the same thing?
(Btw just for clarification, I like you very much as a player, especially your politeness).
Bolded: Now you're being the same thing you claimed to have perceived on me: you are overly reacting to pressure. No one is lynching you yet. My case on you isn't based off "gut feelings". You're almost telling us we need to provide something else to prove your guilty because you are guilty but we still don't have enough.
I think you are on the right track, but this point is invalid.
I literally just pointed out that Arian shouldn't do this. Go reread my Bayes Theorem post
Outdated Mafia Stats
Nope. Roughly speaking, what Arian did was "I've seen him do X while being Y, therefore when he doesn't, he probably isn't Y!", while what I did was "I've seen him do X while being Y, and I'm seeing it again here, so he's probably Y!" :teach::teach:
They're similar in theory, but in Mafia they're far from being the same thing.
I still think that that point is only shows a trend and isn't conclusive but luckily there is plenty of other stuff to go off of
Outdated Mafia Stats