Pretend you don't have a read on me. Pretend I don't fit into any of your "profiles".
Then remove the influence of you read on me on your reads on everyone else. (eg the enemy of my enemy is my friend)
Follow the game from this new perspective.
If I ignore all the emotional tells and the traditional scum tells, I'm left with mindset analysis. This is what Iso and I both already requested that you supply to us - a detailed account of your internal stream-consciousness throughout the game so far that makes your behavior more easily understandable from a town perspective.
You provided one, but it did not strike me as having very many indicators of being trustworthy and genuine. It was pretty basic and superficial stuff, easily faked.
So I'm looking at you, seeing no signs of a genuine townie mindset, a panoply of traditionally scum argumentative tactics, ways of processing information, and emotional responses, and I'm not seeing strong countervailing traditional townie tells.
You are currently failing a five dimensional analysis on all counts. Now, put yourself in my shoes, and try to figure out how I'm reasonably going to respond to your pinging me negatively on almost every single level of analysis that I've been able to come up with over the past eight years.
*folds arms* That's what you're up against.
There have been times in the past where I've backed off someone when they gave me a good read on just a single axis of that analysis. I have no reason to trust you on any of them, and even your role claim is a fairly damning point against you.
Given the above, I don't see any rational cause for backing off this wagon. You're reading scum, and I want you put in the ground as soon as practicable. Maybe I'm wrong, there's always that chance, but if I am, you've given me zero indications on any of the methods I use that I'm off-target, and the smart money is to put you down for the count.
@Seppel: without getting too specific, are you claiming accidental use of ability here? Or mistake of some kind? Or something else?
I'm going to go look at WOLG/Ged now....
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Bateleur »
Ambush Krotiq makes me laugh so much. I keep rereading the card and it keeps not having Flash. In what sense is this an ambush again? I just have visions of this huge Krotiq poorly concealed in some bushes, feeling slightly sad that his carefully planned ambushes never seem to work.
Ambush Krotiq makes me laugh so much. I keep rereading the card and it keeps not having Flash. In what sense is this an ambush again? I just have visions of this huge Krotiq poorly concealed in some bushes, feeling slightly sad that his carefully planned ambushes never seem to work.
I will not invent a fake "account of [my] internal stream-consciousness" because you find the real one "pretty basic and superficial". It is you who are looking far too deep into my early posts. It is you who fail to take into account the psychological consequence of seeing very straightforward posts (except the too subtle jokes in #44, I guess) interpreted in the most elaborate and twisted way possible, then regurgitated along with mockeries and taunts. All for cheap thrills. And you did it again and again. And the other players agreed and saw nothing wrong at all with your way of doing things. They probably chuckled at your jokes.
Perhaps for you the thought processes of experienced players such as us is never simple. We differ. I on the other hand rely on a number of warning signs to stop myself from letting my thought processes become too convoluted. For example, had I been in your place when you first came up with your case on me, I (hopefully) would have realised the discrepancy between how much I am deducing and how little there is to deduce it from. As an analyst I have been wrong enough times to know I am my own worse enemy.
You should rely less on your "profiles" and "five dimensional analysis" and take things at face value more. Simple does not mean shallow, complex does not mean deep.
First you say I'm oversimplifying in my methods, now you say I'm overcomplicating.
I'm thinking it's safe to say you just don't like the conclusion I'm reaching.
Oh yes...quite interesting indeed. As per usual: Vote: Xyre
You can never be too careful...
Random voting the Mod. is whatever. But question what is "quite interesting indeed," 20 posts in? Were you talking about Frophmoff here, or something else?
First serious post. Vote Zionite for being the third vote on the AE wagon. He beings up a Zionite post from another game (in which Zionite's alignment is currently unknown?) where Zionite criticized someone else for being 3rd "random" vote on a wagon.
I'm mixed on this in that (1) I do tend to like it when people go looking at other games you have played for evidence of playstyle and such. That kind of outside work tends to show a Town mindset. But (2) the application and conclusion of this outside work seems bad here. The two situations aren't even really comparable except for both people being 3rd vote on a wagon. And (while there is, in fact, some merit to the whole "3rd person on the wagon is more likely to be scum" theory) it's not actually a good reason to vote someone. It's actually a bad reason to vote someone all by itself. Also, given Zionite's alignment is unknown is this other game, what could this possibly say about his alignment here. So this reads a little like mudslinging to me.
I'm pointing out that he said it's scummy to throw on a third vote in a mini via a joke vote. I didn't see his next post saying he wanted to do it because of policy, which makes it even worse in my opinion so vote stays.
I have no idea what you mean by flipping, nor do I know anyone's alignment but my own.
Here he reaffirms his vote based on Zionite's apparent hypocrisy (for criticizing "joke" 3rd votes on wagons in the other game while being one here), says he "missed" the part where Zionite claimed his vote wasn't a joke vote, but then says even if it wasn't a joke it would be even worse, so vote stays. This looks a little like backtracking and ret-conning as he realizes his original reason for voting might be completely invalid, but he doesn't want to give up the vote and comes up with another reason, which is unstated but which appears to be "voting to policy lynch someone is scummy."
5th post: We all know that Xyre is scum though, the mod just won't let us lynch him.
Quote from WOLG »
Aside from that, I like your read on me. Iso's read is bad and he should feel bad.
You like his read on you? Really? That's just such a strange thing to say.
I think the fact that you've opportunistically jumped on as the third vote in two separate wagons is scummy. It looks to me like your plan is to bandwagon and OMGUS vote anyone voting you that has accumulated votes on them.
Here Zionite appears to suggest that his original vote was a trap vote. WOLG is undeterred and comes up with another reason to be voting for Zionite - he's now been the 3rd vote on two wagons (joking or non-joking). Which is opportunistic and scummy. See above but just being the third vote on a wagon isn't really enough reason to place a vote on someone in my opinion.
7th post: (this one is a little longer so click the link if you want to read it)
Here Az asks if people think "flavor" claiming might be useful and WOLG pooh-poohs that idea. Which is fine in the abstract. You can be opposed to this or think it wouldn't really gain us anything. The way he goes on and says, however, that he thinks a flavor claim might lead to us gaming the mod. and running around in circles for "hundreds" of posts seems a little off. A little too extreme.
He then indicates his agreement with the ZDS wagon (without voting). This is also not inherrently scummy, but it's something scum can do - especially if it's a scumbuddy getting run up.
Don't feel bad, I think that was a solid play. Things were moving really quickly, and the bandwagon just kept rolling. ZDS's actions towards the end of the wagon reminded me of a game where CropCirlces got pissed as town that the same thing was happening to him, and he said screw it and voted himself.
Ged hasn't really given any solid stances on anything so far, and popping in that late on the wagon without reasons is indeed scummy.
This is the biggest "red flag" post for me thusfar. Seppel has apparently cancelled ZDS's lynch (by mistake?) and WOLG says he thinks it was a "solid" play. Because the wagon was moving too fast. And ZDS's play reminded him of a time when (townie) Cropcircles got run up and voted himself out of frustration. Of course, WOLG did not ever speak out against the wagon or say anything in ZDS's defense. The last thing he had said was expressing agreement with it.
ZDS posted several more times after WOLG's post, so, sure, it's possible when WOLG came back to the thread he read those posts and revised his opinion of ZDS, and found out ZDS had been pardoned at the same time. But the above post makes it look like his real opposition was for nothing more than the "speed", which is kind of alignment-neutral. You can have speedy wagons on scum as easily as on Town.
Ged jumping on the bandwagon and putting you into claim range. I still think there was a lot of valid discussion to be had before we got close to anyone claiming. Just because I agreed with some of the points made against you doesn't mean I wanted to lynch you. If I did, I would have been voting you.
ZDS of all people questions WOLG's remark that he disliked the "speed" of the wagon on him. Says it was Ged's vote that concerned him about the speed, and he apparently didn't want anyone claiming so early in the game. This mentality I do not understand at all. I'm like, if a player has garnered enough suspicion from enough people, let's get a move on and claim, so we can decide what to do next. Otherwise, what are we doing? Also, there's a defensive tone here with "Just because I agreed with some of the points made against you doesn't mean I wanted to lynch you" - who said anything about you wanting to lynch ZDS? Where did that come from? It's almost like WOLG is defending himself from an attack nobody has made but he's afraid someone might make. Which suggests a little too much concern about appearances and how he looks this game.
10th post:
Rather large mis-representation of Ged's post here:
Quote from WOLG »
Clarify something for me:
Your reason for jumping on the bandwagon is that you wanted a quick lynch?
Which is nothing at all like what Ged said as far as I can tell. Also another misrepresentation in the last line:
Quote from WOLG »
Are you saying that your reason for not contributing more to the game is because you're waiting for me to post more?
Which, again, is not at all what Ged said.
So, what I'm seeing is some inconsistent reasoning and retconning of reasons to justify his vote on Zionite. Some throwing of support towards the ZDS wagon, quickly retracted/revised when the wagon became an impossibility. Some concern about his own townie-looking appearance. And some misrepresentations of other people's posts. Coupled with an otherwise complete lack of scum-hunting - he's basically only responding to other people's posts - and I'm happy with:
Vote: WOLG
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Bateleur »
Ambush Krotiq makes me laugh so much. I keep rereading the card and it keeps not having Flash. In what sense is this an ambush again? I just have visions of this huge Krotiq poorly concealed in some bushes, feeling slightly sad that his carefully planned ambushes never seem to work.
I don't like the words you're trying to feed me there, short man. How did my mindset change from one quote to the next? In the first case, I had a question, I entered dramatically (because really, how could I not?), and then I asked it. In the second, I stated an opinion. Feel free to say my contributions have been lacking - you'd be right. I'm not ashamed of it. It's the way I am. If you don't like that, you can go sit over with Seppel and not like it. But it doesn't say jack about my character.
And trying to make that of all things a point against me? It's a point against you.
The point I was bringing up with these quotes is that you came in saying "EVERYONE CALM DOWN. Help has arrived. We're all going to be fine now." Giving that the situation you entered into was the beginning on a wagon that was picking up speed, this seems like a proper response to me. Then you flipped to voting that person for no reason other than "I'm beginning to be swayed towards the prevalent opinion that ZDS has a villainous nature."
That to me says you're straight bandwagoning with no reasons of your own, and you don't even cite what exactly is swaying you. When questioned about why you voted, you say that you are all about action and not waiting around, still not providing any actual reasons for voting other than that you wanted to hasten the lynching process.
BANG - WOLG jumps on the ZDS wagon right as it's clearly gaining steam but before it hits its peak with myself. He also feels compelled to add a mediocre-at-best additional point, because if he just said "I agree with Az and Iso!" he'd end up taking some heat. Unlike me - I'm not afraid of heat. July is my favorite month.
How am I "Jumping on the wagon" when I'm not voting for, nor calling for, the lynch of ZDS? And yes, adding a "mediocre-at-best additional point" is better than just saying "I agree." Scum like to mindlessly parrot and wagon without reasons. It's something I wanted to have a response from ZDS about because the phrasing didn't set well with me, if I was afraid of "taking some heat" I wouldn't be engaging in the conversation at all, and only posting three times in two hundred posts.
WHIZZ - Ged's obviously the next target, because it's always easy to hit up lurkers. Especially when they've put down a vote on a now dead wagon!
Actually yes, it's pretty obvious that we should go after lurkers who mindlessly bandwagon. Your tone here is implying that it's scummy to do so, but I disagree.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-[thread=14456]The [Untitled] Avatar and Sig shop![/thread] Avatar from:[thread=25376] [Epic Graphics][/thread]
Yeah, that contradiction between suspecting ZDS and the ZDS pardon being "solid play" is particularly damning. I'd like to hear the explanation for that.
I'm not sure if I should feel insulted that WOLG came by and responded to Ged but completely ignored me....
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Bateleur »
Ambush Krotiq makes me laugh so much. I keep rereading the card and it keeps not having Flash. In what sense is this an ambush again? I just have visions of this huge Krotiq poorly concealed in some bushes, feeling slightly sad that his carefully planned ambushes never seem to work.
1sr Post:
Random voting the Mod. is whatever. But question what is "quite interesting indeed," 20 posts in? Were you talking about Frophmoff here, or something else?
Everything at that point was very interesting to me. The flavor of the start of the game, a gimmick being in, you doing the smileys, Ged talking about flying, the whole shebang. I haven't been in a game for a while and I was loving the randomness at the beginning.
First serious post. Vote Zionite for being the third vote on the AE wagon. He beings up a Zionite post from another game (in which Zionite's alignment is currently unknown?) where Zionite criticized someone else for being 3rd "random" vote on a wagon.
I'm mixed on this in that (1) I do tend to like it when people go looking at other games you have played for evidence of playstyle and such. That kind of outside work tends to show a Town mindset. But (2) the application and conclusion of this outside work seems bad here. The two situations aren't even really comparable except for both people being 3rd vote on a wagon. And (while there is, in fact, some merit to the whole "3rd person on the wagon is more likely to be scum" theory) it's not actually a good reason to vote someone. It's actually a bad reason to vote someone all by itself. Also, given Zionite's alignment is unknown is this other game, what could this possibly say about his alignment here. So this reads a little like mudslinging to me. 4th post:
Here he reaffirms his vote based on Zionite's apparent hypocrisy (for criticizing "joke" 3rd votes on wagons in the other game while being one here), says he "missed" the part where Zionite claimed his vote wasn't a joke vote, but then says even if it wasn't a joke it would be even worse, so vote stays. This looks a little like backtracking and ret-conning as he realizes his original reason for voting might be completely invalid, but he doesn't want to give up the vote ...
I've been remiss to really go into more on this due to the fact that the other game is ongoing and I received a warning for quoting that game. But I'll try to explain my logic here. Regardless of his alignment in that game, or what his role is, in that game, he agreed with the "3rd person on wagon" logic. It's logic that I've followed and have played in many games where scum were caught on that type of bandwagoning. So when he said that he agrees with that logic, then does exactly what he said he thinks is scummy,regardless of what game it happened in, it pinged my radar. It was sloppy town play on my part to just quote his two points and think everyone would understand where I was coming from. I don't see how you think it's backtracking, because I did not, and still do not, think my vote is misplaced. I still think my original reason for voting is completely valid.
and comes up with another reason, which is unstated but which appears to be "voting to policy lynch someone is scummy."
What was that about mudslinging? Explain to me how a reason is unstated but appears to be my reason. You're quoting me where I said "...he wanted to do it because of policy, which makes it even worse."
6th post:
Here Zionite appears to suggest that his original vote was a trap vote. WOLG is undeterred and comes up with another reason to be voting for Zionite - he's now been the 3rd vote on two wagons (joking or non-joking). Which is opportunistic and scummy. See above but just being the third vote on a wagon isn't really enough reason to place a vote on someone in my opinion.
1.) If I think someone is scum, why would I not continue to come up with reasons for voting them?
2.) People throw their votes around for much less reason than that. I think it's a very valid reason to vote someone in the early game. He hasn't done anything so far to make me believe he's town, so my vote hasn't changed.
7th post: (this one is a little longer so click the link if you want to read it)
Here Az asks if people think "flavor" claiming might be useful and WOLG pooh-poohs that idea. Which is fine in the abstract. You can be opposed to this or think it wouldn't really gain us anything. The way he goes on and says, however, that he thinks a flavor claim might lead to us gaming the mod. and running around in circles for "hundreds" of posts seems a little off. A little too extreme.
He then indicates his agreement with the ZDS wagon (without voting). This is also not inherrently scummy, but it's something scum can do - especially if it's a scumbuddy getting run up.
I can't remember the names of games in specific, but I'm fairly certain we've both seen games go "hundreds of posts" gaming the mod. It's not something I want to see here. If you think I was overreaching a bit, that's okay, we can disagree. I think that wagons can be good if there are people with solid logic and points on them. Az and Iso had points I agreed with, I didn't agree with the rest of the wagon and push for lynch.
8th post:
This is the biggest "red flag" post for me thusfar. Seppel has apparently cancelled ZDS's lynch (by mistake?) and WOLG says he thinks it was a "solid" play. Because the wagon was moving too fast. And ZDS's play reminded him of a time when (townie) Cropcircles got run up and voted himself out of frustration. Of course, WOLG did not ever speak out against the wagon or say anything in ZDS's defense. The last thing he had said was expressing agreement with it.
ZDS posted several more times after WOLG's post, so, sure, it's possible when WOLG came back to the thread he read those posts and revised his opinion of ZDS, and found out ZDS had been pardoned at the same time. But the above post makes it look like his real opposition was for nothing more than the "speed", which is kind of alignment-neutral. You can have speedy wagons on scum as easily as on Town.
My main opposition to the wagon was the speed. I only felt like two of the people voting ZDS really had legitimate reasons to be doing so. I didn't speak out against the wagon because at that point it was garnering really good discussion, and I assumed anyone else jumping on would be providing good reasons for doing so. I ended up being incorrect in that assumption.
9th post:
ZDS of all people questions WOLG's remark that he disliked the "speed" of the wagon on him. Says it was Ged's vote that concerned him about the speed, and he apparently didn't want anyone claiming so early in the game. This mentality I do not understand at all. I'm like, if a player has garnered enough suspicion from enough people, let's get a move on and claim, so we can decide what to do next. Otherwise, what are we doing? Also, there's a defensive tone here with "Just because I agreed with some of the points made against you doesn't mean I wanted to lynch you" - who said anything about you wanting to lynch ZDS? Where did that come from? It's almost like WOLG is defending himself from an attack nobody has made but he's afraid someone might make. Which suggests a little too much concern about appearances and how he looks this game.
1.) I didn't feel that that early in the game, anyone had garnered justified suspicion from enough people.
2.) In the post I'm responding to, ZDS had juxtaposed my two quotes and asked me the same question you're asking me now. I read an eyebrow smiley and the tone in the words "what point exactly" in his question as him finding that suspicious, so I clarified my reasoning. [/Quote]
So boring!Waiting around is for losers. And people at bus stops. Am I either of those? Hardly. Dawdling is right up there with large games on my list of mafia things I dislike. I'm much more of an action man.
That sounds like he's saying he wanted the lynch to happen quickly. The words I've bolded are the buzzwords that led me to that assumption. In my mind, saying that we shouldn't be waiting around to lynch someone is trying for a quick lynch.
Explain to me what you think he's actually saying here.
Also another misrepresentation in the last line:
Which, again, is not at all what Ged said.
At that point, he had not posted much content, and the only reasoning he stated for his inaction was that he was "playing at that game" in regards to "waiting for him to post more stuff." He did not explicitly state that was his reasons, but how he stated it made me think that. That's why I questioned him about it.
I was asking Ged questions, not making accusations and assuming my read of his actions were his intentions behind his actions. I wasn't "misrepresenting" him, I was asking what he meant by his posts.
So, what I'm seeing is some inconsistent reasoning and retconning of reasons to justify his vote on Zionite. Some throwing of support towards the ZDS wagon, quickly retracted/revised when the wagon became an impossibility. Some concern about his own townie-looking appearance. And some misrepresentations of other people's posts. Coupled with an otherwise complete lack of scum-hunting - he's basically only responding to other people's posts - and I'm happy with:
You mentioned mudslinging? This is full of words with largely negative connotations and were used specifically to paint me in a scummy light. That's okay though, I look forward to your response.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-[thread=14456]The [Untitled] Avatar and Sig shop![/thread] Avatar from:[thread=25376] [Epic Graphics][/thread]
@Froph: I have, in fact, accused ZDS of being scum repeatedly now. I would have happily voted him(including hammering him if he was at L-1) if I had the opportunity to do so. I have already stated this as well. Have I voted for anyone else yet? No, I haven't. His behavior has been awful. His latest post is a great example of this. He casts suspicion on 3 people, including Ged(even though he says that Ged's posting is decent and Unvoted him at the start of the post) but somehow ends up voting me, not because he thinks I'm the most likely to be scum, but because I'm the easiest person for him to vote for. Unfortunately, we can't lynch ZDS. And that has created a weird void where I'm not sure whom to vote for. The problem is that the ZDS wagon provided no currently useful information. We didn't even get a claim to analyze from him. We're effectively at a point where it's like the ZDS wagon didn't happen...except that it did.
That's why I was probing AE about Ged. The immediate swing of suspicion onto Ged struck me as suspect, especially when AE said that it was a good idea because ZDS said so(paraphrase, but still). It's worth noting that AE has still not at all explained why he named ZDS there. He said it 'could have been anyone', but that doesn't really make sense.
And of course, the 2 people that AE would like to see lynched today just happen to be exactly the 2 people that have been pressuring him.
@DYH: You clearly tried to trap me. My reaction there has nothing to do with my alignment, I'm just insulted that you thought that would go unnoticed.
I don't know what people are on about when it comes to WOLG. I don't see anything wrong with his posts thus far. I'll summarize and post my thoughts on AE.
@DYH: You clearly tried to trap me. My reaction there has nothing to do with my alignment, I'm just insulted that you thought that would go unnoticed.
Yeah, I got that part. It certainly wasn't meant as an insult, but it was meant to get you to respond.
But you've chosen to ignore the part I actually care about - the commentary on your behavior. Nothing?
Quote from Cyan »
I don't know what people are on about when it comes to WOLG. I don't see anything wrong with his posts thus far. I'll summarize and post my thoughts on AE.
Can't really agree with you here, either.
@WOLG: Who did you think were the two legit reads on ZDS?
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
@DYH: What about my behavior? My behavior was different than you're used to in Cyberspace too. My behavior was also different in the couple of games that I played in before you started playing again(Cyberpunk and Checks and Balances). My playstyle is just not the same as it used to be.
And now that ZDS is on the WOLG wagon, maybe you guys will realize that the wagon is bad.
Axelrod made a good case, but WOLG defended himself well. Zionite's vote on WOLG was awful(actually everything that Zionite has done this game has been awful), but ZDS' vote is even worse. His obvious lack of sincerity in his vote on me/suspicion of Iso couldn't be more apparent now.
Yeah, that contradiction between suspecting ZDS and the ZDS pardon being "solid play" is particularly damning. I'd like to hear the explanation for that.
Yeah, that contradiction between suspecting ZDS and the ZDS pardon being "solid play" is particularly damning. I'd like to hear the explanation for that.
unvote, Vote WoLG
It's not a contradiction at all. I thought there were valid points against him, but was not pursuing a lynch. I was glad when Sep stopped the lynch because people, including you, were mindlessly jumping on the wagon. Just like you're doing here. As soon as everyone who has actually given reasons for voting me is responded to and they understand my point of view, I'm going to give a full train of thought on why you're scum and haven't taken my vote off you.
Because when your initial reasons to be voting them are invalidated you should be reconsidering your scum read?
Did you read the part of the post before that? My original reasons for voting him are still valid to me. Exactly where were they invalidated? Also: He's been continually acting scummy, so my vote has stayed there.
I've been remiss to really go into more on this due to the fact that the other game is ongoing and I received a warning for quoting that game. But I'll try to explain my logic here. Regardless of his alignment in that game, or what his role is, in that game, he agreed with the "3rd person on wagon" logic. It's logic that I've followed and have played in many games where scum were caught on that type of bandwagoning. So when he said that he agrees with that logic, then does exactly what he said he thinks is scummy,regardless of what game it happened in, it pinged my radar. It was sloppy town play on my part to just quote his two points and think everyone would understand where I was coming from. I don't see how you think it's backtracking, because I did not, and still do not, think my vote is misplaced. I still think my original reason for voting is completely valid.
Please explain what this has to do with anything you said in the "contradictory" posts and in your first clarification of the contradiction.
Can you dumb this down for me? I have no idea what you're asking. I re-read the chain of events, and this sounds like a completely legitimate response to Axelrod's point.
Axel claimed I never spoke out, I state why I never spoke out. He said it looked like my opposition was speed, I agreed.
What is making all the eybrows, and why the bandwagon vote? I'm not reading anything here saying that you think I'm scum, that you think anything I did was scummy or wrong.
It's not a contradiction at all. I thought there were valid points against him, but was not pursuing a lynch. I was glad when Sep stopped the lynch because people, including you, were mindlessly jumping on the wagon. Just like you're doing here. As soon as everyone who has actually given reasons for voting me is responded to and they understand my point of view, I'm going to give a full train of thought on why you're scum and haven't taken my vote off you.
How can I be "mindlessly jumping on the wagon" with "valid points against him"?
Everything at that point was very interesting to me. The flavor of the start of the game, a gimmick being in, you doing the smileys, Ged talking about flying, the whole shebang. I haven't been in a game for a while and I was loving the randomness at the beginning.
If you had said "man, I am loving all this randomness" it would have come across as much more natural than "oh yes...quite interesting indeed." The former seems spontaneous. The latter calculated.
I've been remiss to really go into more on this due to the fact that the other game is ongoing and I received a warning for quoting that game. But I'll try to explain my logic here. Regardless of his alignment in that game, or what his role is, in that game, he agreed with the "3rd person on wagon" logic. It's logic that I've followed and have played in many games where scum were caught on that type of bandwagoning. So when he said that he agrees with that logic, then does exactly what he said he thinks is scummy,regardless of what game it happened in, it pinged my radar. It was sloppy town play on my part to just quote his two points and think everyone would understand where I was coming from. I don't see how you think it's backtracking, because I did not, and still do not, think my vote is misplaced. I still think my original reason for voting is completely valid.
1st, it's not simply 3rd on a wagon that we were talking about, I thought, but 3rd "random" vote - which you were suggesting (that Zionite was suggesting) was a tell. And Zionite was therefore being hypocritical for "randomly" placing his vote in this game when he had argued it was a scummy thing to do in the other game.
The backtracking comes in when you (at least appear) to recognize that maybe Zionite's vote wasn't so random after all, but you continue to press forward anyway, saying "well, even if it wasn't random, it was still scummy for this other reason, so vote stays...."
What was that about mudslinging? Explain to me how a reason is unstated but appears to be my reason. You're quoting me where I said "...he wanted to do it because of policy, which makes it even worse."
Are you accusing me of mudslinging here? I'm trying to parse your post. If I've got something incorrect, feel free to point it out, but I am slinging no mud. You did change your reasoning, yes? You went from disliking the vote because it looked like a random 3rd on the wagon to disliking it because it was advocating for a policy lynch. And the issue here is that you now seem to be holding onto both these reasons for disliking the vote simultaneously, even though they are incompatible. Either the vote was random or it wasn't. It was seriously advocating for a policy lynch or it wasn't. You seem to be saying "whatever it was, it was scummy, so I'm happy either way."
And maybe it wasn't so much your reason being "unstated" as it was you skipping saying why you felt this was even "worse."
1.) If I think someone is scum, why would I not continue to come up with reasons for voting them?
2.) People throw their votes around for much less reason than that. I think it's a very valid reason to vote someone in the early game. He hasn't done anything so far to make me believe he's town, so my vote hasn't changed.
Well, I'm saying that just being the 3rd vote on a wagon isn't much to go on all by itself. You now seem like you're saying "sure, but, you don't need that much to vote someone early on." And that's true too. But again, it seems like you're now revising your reasons for voting some more. Or at least characterizing it differently. It you want to go "hey, it's early, no biggie" you can do that, but this would also be the first time you said something like that.
So just tell me, how strongly do you feel Zionite is scum right now?
I can't remember the names of games in specific, but I'm fairly certain we've both seen games go "hundreds of posts" gaming the mod. It's not something I want to see here. If you think I was overreaching a bit, that's okay, we can disagree. I think that wagons can be good if there are people with solid logic and points on them. Az and Iso had points I agreed with, I didn't agree with the rest of the wagon and push for lynch.
I mean, Az hadn't even actually proposed that we should do this. He wasn't asking for other people's opinions on whether we should do this. He was more like pondering to himself out loud. But you immediately shut it down with I don't want to get sidetracked with hundreds of posts that would just be running in circles anyway....
My main opposition to the wagon was the speed. I only felt like two of the people voting ZDS really had legitimate reasons to be doing so. I didn't speak out against the wagon because at that point it was garnering really good discussion, and I assumed anyone else jumping on would be providing good reasons for doing so. I ended up being incorrect in that assumption.
Wait, are you saying you formed your opinion that the wagon was bad before Seppel shut it down. And you deliberately chose not to say anything about it? Because you liked the discussion it was generating and you assumed that anyone who jumped on would be providing "good reasons" for their votes?
Ged defended his vote when questioned about it by saying:
That sounds like he's saying he wanted the lynch to happen quickly. The words I've bolded are the buzzwords that led me to that assumption. In my mind, saying that we shouldn't be waiting around to lynch someone is trying for a quick lynch.
Explain to me what you think he's actually saying here.
At no point does Ged even mention the word "lynch." The entire context of the post was in terms of ZDS being forced to claim. And the way I read it was Ged saying he didn't know how many votes ZDS had on him at the time of his vote, but didn't want to bother waiting to cast the vote. Which could be problematic for other reasons, but is simply not the same thing as advocating for a speedy-lynch, which is how you characterized it.
I was asking Ged questions, not making accusations and assuming my read of his actions were his intentions behind his actions. I wasn't "misrepresenting" him, I was asking what he meant by his posts.
You appeared to be asking him fairly loaded questions which were misrepresenting what he had said. That's my issue, not that you ask him questions.
You mentioned mudslinging? This is full of words with largely negative connotations and were used specifically to paint me in a scummy light. That's okay though, I look forward to your response.
I'm glad it's okay.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Bateleur »
Ambush Krotiq makes me laugh so much. I keep rereading the card and it keeps not having Flash. In what sense is this an ambush again? I just have visions of this huge Krotiq poorly concealed in some bushes, feeling slightly sad that his carefully planned ambushes never seem to work.
Funny you should say that since several players completely ignored my comments on Cyan, as well - you included.
Funny you should say this is funny.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Bateleur »
Ambush Krotiq makes me laugh so much. I keep rereading the card and it keeps not having Flash. In what sense is this an ambush again? I just have visions of this huge Krotiq poorly concealed in some bushes, feeling slightly sad that his carefully planned ambushes never seem to work.
Ambush Krotiq makes me laugh so much. I keep rereading the card and it keeps not having Flash. In what sense is this an ambush again? I just have visions of this huge Krotiq poorly concealed in some bushes, feeling slightly sad that his carefully planned ambushes never seem to work.
Well, that didn't work like I planned but it was useful enough.
Unvote, vote ZDS
No reasons stated at all for voting him = mindlessly jumping on the wagon.
In fact, the only time you list any type of negative reaction to him is saying an argument he made AFTER you voted was a straw man, and calling him desperate scum.
(Your vote: post 83, your negative reaction post 109, quoting his post 85)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-[thread=14456]The [Untitled] Avatar and Sig shop![/thread] Avatar from:[thread=25376] [Epic Graphics][/thread]
You were not the one making any valid points. Your vote post:
No reasons stated at all for voting him = mindlessly jumping on the wagon.
In fact, the only time you list any type of negative reaction to him is saying an argument he made AFTER you voted was a straw man, and calling him desperate scum.
(Your vote: post 83, your negative reaction post 109, quoting his post 85)
I could reiterate the entire case against ZDS, but it's a waste of time at this point. I was happy with a ZDS lynch. The case was solid and his reactions telling. Just because I didn't come up with it doesn't mean I was mindlessly jumping on the wagon. I still had to read and decide.
I could reiterate the entire case against ZDS, but it's a waste of time at this point. I was happy with a ZDS lynch. The case was solid and his reactions telling. Just because I didn't come up with it doesn't mean I was mindlessly jumping on the wagon. I still had to read and decide.
I'm not saying you had to reiterate the entire case. What I'm saying is that you never listed any reasons for voting him. You didn't even say which points you agreed with, or at the least who you agreed with. I'm not saying you have to list reasons now, I'm saying that you didn't when it mattered.
@ax: Before you make another "wolg is ignoring me" post: I'm at work and on my phone and can't respond to your large post via small keyboard.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-[thread=14456]The [Untitled] Avatar and Sig shop![/thread] Avatar from:[thread=25376] [Epic Graphics][/thread]
@Ged: Fair enough. I'm reading your response to the top half of my post as genuine and I appreciate the clarification.
Stupendous.
Quote from WOLG »
The point I was bringing up with these quotes is that you came in saying "EVERYONE CALM DOWN. Help has arrived. We're all going to be fine now." Giving that the situation you entered into was the beginning on a wagon that was picking up speed, this seems like a proper response to me. Then you flipped to voting that person for no reason other than "I'm beginning to be swayed towards the prevalent opinion that ZDS has a villainous nature."
That to me says you're straight bandwagoning with no reasons of your own, and you don't even cite what exactly is swaying you. When questioned about why you voted, you say that you are all about action and not waiting around, still not providing any actual reasons for voting other than that you wanted to hasten the lynching process.
Ah, I see your confusion. When I arrived asking people to calm down, what I meant was that I had something important to say (important is really an unnecessary adjective here given how important everything I say is) and they should listen to me. Then once my question as answered they should feel free to return to whatever loudness they were occupied with before. I never had a quarrel with the ZDS wagon.
Perhaps you are right that I should have provided more of a reason for my vote, but I wasn't thinking in specifics at the time. Big picture action man, yes? I read the Az-ZDS fight and found ZDS coming out looking worse for it. Then I voted. Call it gut, if you like. And with guts of steel-like strength, I tend to trust mine.
Quote from WOLG »
How am I "Jumping on the wagon" when I'm not voting for, nor calling for, the lynch of ZDS?
...
I'm...
...
pulls out glasses
I swear you voted ZDS there.
puts away glasses
Excuse me, I need to hide in a corner and confront my apparent morality for a moment.
Hm.
Quote from WOLG »
And yes, adding a "mediocre-at-best additional point" is better than just saying "I agree."
I'm rather shaken here, and I withdraw the point you are addressing here. But I don't necessarily agree with this quote in general. While not universal, I often find good-hearted souls are more likely to be fine just agreeing with an argument while those tainted by evil find the need to justify themselves. It's a minor thing.
Quote from WOLG »
Actually yes, it's pretty obvious that we should go after lurkers who mindlessly bandwagon. Your tone here is implying that it's scummy to do so, but I disagree.
My experience has taught me I'm just as likely to find someone lurking because they're lazy as it is they're malicious. You may disagree. The plan never suited me as a way to successfully find criminals, though it does wonders for spurring content from the quiet.
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to re-asses now that my eyes are back in my skull.
If you had said "man, I am loving all this randomness" it would have come across as much more natural than "oh yes...quite interesting indeed." The former seems spontaneous. The latter calculated.
That's how I talk, I'm sorry that it doesn't sound natural.
1st, it's not simply 3rd on a wagon that we were talking about, I thought, but 3rd "random" vote - which you were suggesting (that Zionite was suggesting) was a tell. And Zionite was therefore being hypocritical for "randomly" placing his vote in this game when he had argued it was a scummy thing to do in the other game.
The backtracking comes in when you (at least appear) to recognize that maybe Zionite's vote wasn't so random after all, but you continue to press forward anyway, saying "well, even if it wasn't random, it was still scummy for this other reason, so vote stays...."
My original vote and scum read on him was for opportunistically jumping on the wagon via a vote that I perceived as joke in RVS. In his next post he "actually wanted to lynch AE." That's not me "recognizing that maybe Zionite's vote wasn't so random," That's Zionite specifically stating that it wasn't. His new reasoning for voting read even scummier to me, because jumping as the third vote on a wagon for "policy" is not pro town.
I was given a new reason to keep my vote there.
Are you accusing me of mudslinging here? I'm trying to parse your post. If I've got something incorrect, feel free to point it out, but I am slinging no mud. You did change your reasoning, yes? You went from disliking the vote because it looked like a random 3rd on the wagon to disliking it because it was advocating for a policy lynch. And the issue here is that you now seem to be holding onto both these reasons for disliking the vote simultaneously, even though they are incompatible. Either the vote was random or it wasn't. It was seriously advocating for a policy lynch or it wasn't. You seem to be saying "whatever it was, it was scummy, so I'm happy either way."
And maybe it wasn't so much your reason being "unstated" as it was you skipping saying why you felt this was even "worse."
The mudslinging comment wasn't supposed to be there. It was meant for my last line and I apparently didn't notice it got put in the wrong place in my preview.
That's not incorrect. I thought that the mindset behind his vote was scummy, so I voted him. He later comes out to say that it was a "trap" for AE that someone else botched, and I find THAT reason for his vote scummy as well. Joke vote/serious vote/trap vote, no matter what he is CLAIMING that his vote meant, it reads as scum opportunism to me.
Well, I'm saying that just being the 3rd vote on a wagon isn't much to go on all by itself. You now seem like you're saying "sure, but, you don't need that much to vote someone early on." And that's true too. But again, it seems like you're now revising your reasons for voting some more. Or at least characterizing it differently. It you want to go "hey, it's early, no biggie" you can do that, but this would also be the first time you said something like that.
So just tell me, how strongly do you feel Zionite is scum right now?
More and more with every post he makes. He's the only person I have solid pegged as scum. I don't want to deflect from my own wagon at the moment, because it's generating good content, but I believe Zionite is the best target we have for scum at the moment. I've made some points against him in my past few posts interacting with him.
Wait, are you saying you formed your opinion that the wagon was bad before Seppel shut it down. And you deliberately chose not to say anything about it? Because you liked the discussion it was generating and you assumed that anyone who jumped on would be providing "good reasons" for their votes?
How does that make any kind of sense?
Az and Iso were votes 1 and 2 on the wagon, they had stated reasons.
(OMG Hold up. Small digression: In my post #84 I accused Zionite of being the third vote on ZDS...He wasn't, Seppel was. Why did no one tell me I was blatently wrong in that accusation? OH WAIT, Seppel tried to, and I was super confused as to why he was defending Zionite. {He responded to a post in which I was quoting and directly responding to Zionite.})
Seppel was vote three and gave a reason. Zionite was 4th and mindlessly bandwagoned, which I've pointed out as being scummy.
Some good discussion was generated, and I agreed with some of the points on ZDS and mentioned something that bothered me about his play.
Then Ged came out of hiding and mindlessly bandwagoned, putting ZDS in claim range.
That moment is exactly when I thought the wagon was bad and moving too fast. I believe I've said that before. I didn't "choose not to say anything about it" I had not checked the thread again from my post 127 to 169, or I would have flipped out on Ged immediately.
At no point does Ged even mention the word "lynch." The entire context of the post was in terms of ZDS being forced to claim. And the way I read it was Ged saying he didn't know how many votes ZDS had on him at the time of his vote, but didn't want to bother waiting to cast the vote. Which could be problematic for other reasons, but is simply not the same thing as advocating for a speedy-lynch, which is how you characterized it.
Ok, I see what you're saying. I appear to have mischaracterized his post, and for that I appologize. In my mind, voting is for lynching. If you're putting someone into "claim range" you're attempting to lynch them, but I suppose he wanted the claim from ZDS to see if we should be lynching him. In light of that, Ged looks less scummy in my eyes.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-[thread=14456]The [Untitled] Avatar and Sig shop![/thread] Avatar from:[thread=25376] [Epic Graphics][/thread]
I'm getting a pretty good townie feel from WoLG, and Axelrod's case reads slanted to me. WoLG didn't explain himself well in many of his earlier posts, and his phrasing is always a little weird, but his responses to Axel make sense to me. This wagon went from nothing to L-2 waaaaaay too fast for my comfort, and gives me all kinds off icky feelings about everyone on board. Do. Not. Approve.
Quote from Cyan »
@Froph: I have, in fact, accused ZDS of being scum repeatedly now. I would have happily voted him(including hammering him if he was at L-1) if I had the opportunity to do so. I have already stated this as well.
All you had said about ZDS before Seppel blocked the lynch is that he is "normally so cautious." All the stuff about wanting to lynch him came after it was no longer possible. Showing support for a lynch that can't happen does nothing to hunt scum, or to help your case.
Quote from Cyan »
Have I voted for anyone else yet? No, I haven't. His behavior has been awful. His latest post is a great example of this. He casts suspicion on 3 people, including Ged(even though he says that Ged's posting is decent and Unvoted him at the start of the post) but somehow ends up voting me, not because he thinks I'm the most likely to be scum, but because I'm the easiest person for him to vote for. Unfortunately, we can't lynch ZDS. And that has created a weird void where I'm not sure whom to vote for.
Which is very strange behavior from you. What bothers me here isn't just a change in play style. Even if your style has changed, your intellect has not, and the Cyan I am used to is much better at reading tells and picking a target.
Quote from Cyan »
The problem is that the ZDS wagon provided no currently useful information. We didn't even get a claim to analyze from him. We're effectively at a point where it's like the ZDS wagon didn't happen...except that it did.
The fact that you don't remember that he claimed might be the most telling. I think if you were really trying to figure out who is scum and who is town, you would pay enough attention to notice and remember something that important.
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
Yes, Axelrod is writing much more than usual at this stage. This is more like late-game Axelrod analysis here. Not sure what that means, exactly.
Yes, Seppel appears to be writing much less.
I disagree with WOLG that adding a reason is necessary when adding a vote. Ged basically covered my thoughts there - I tend to find scum will tack on weak reasoning rather than just admit they're barning someone. I find the rest of his responses to Axelrod to be fine, though.
Yes, Cyan, you played Cyberspace differently than previous games, but you still had convictions and stuck to them stubbornly (RobRoy being town, Zionite scum counter-wagon early on comes immediately to mind - as well as your insistance Axelrod was scum). You didn't tiptoe around opposition and play nice with others as it feels like here.
I have to agree with Froph here, too, about not remembering ZDS had claimed.
Hey DYH, what do you make of Seppel forgetting ZDS's claim?
Hey DYH, Cyan did something earlier that indicated he wasn't paying attention, as well. Do you think that's relevant to the point or do you think that disengages the possibility that it makes him scummy?
Hey DYH, what do you make of Az misattributing something earlier involving ZDS, Cyan, and myself?
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
Hey DYH, what do you make of Seppel forgetting ZDS's claim?
Considering it had already been addressed (in that Froph had already pointed out Cyan being wrong), I'm not making anything of it because I can't gauge whether or not he's sincere. It's similar to his "drunk posts".
Quote from Iso »
Hey DYH, Cyan did something earlier that indicated he wasn't paying attention, as well. Do you think that's relevant to the point or do you think that disengages the possibility that it makes him scummy?
The problem with his comment about ZDS goes beyond just not paying attention - it blows up his entire point that the wagon produced nothing worthwhile. It's as if he's trying to handwave that entire portion of the game away.
This is different than his 'not paying attention' in Cyberspace, as he basically just didn't understand the game rules, didn't bother to read them, and winged it.
One was about mechanics, the other is about intent.
Quote from Iso »
Hey DYH, what do you make of Az misattributing something earlier involving ZDS, Cyan, and myself?
I had to go look to find what you were talking about. The "meta defense" conversation? I think Az had enough valid points against ZDS that's it's not damning he misattributed the target. The fact ZDS was using that as a defense is what I took issue with, anyway.
Ambush Krotiq makes me laugh so much. I keep rereading the card and it keeps not having Flash. In what sense is this an ambush again? I just have visions of this huge Krotiq poorly concealed in some bushes, feeling slightly sad that his carefully planned ambushes never seem to work.
Ambush Krotiq makes me laugh so much. I keep rereading the card and it keeps not having Flash. In what sense is this an ambush again? I just have visions of this huge Krotiq poorly concealed in some bushes, feeling slightly sad that his carefully planned ambushes never seem to work.
Take away the meta read, and I don't much besides logic tells, and half of that is tied in to "this is not normal Cyan play", or "this is more careless than I'd expect from Cyan". Pretty boring stuff.
If ZDS claimed, I missed it. I read the post where he refused to claim, and where he said that his claim wouldn't auto-clear him. I didn't find a post by him where he changed this stance. Not that it really changes much. I wouldn't have been dissuaded by an RB claim.
@FrophMoff: The entirety of the ZDS wagon occurred within a single real life day, which was the second day that the game was active. A day in which I didn't post. Before that, the only relevant subject had been Zionite's 'policy vote' on AE. A subject that I was heavily involved in. Your accusations are groundless.
Didn't have a chance to read over AE yesterday, was too involved with work to do a PBPA. Doing so today, along with Zionite hopefully.
I am a French delegate who didn't get to participate in an economic summit (a direct reference to Doha Mafia, my role PM even following a similar structure and using similar keywords). I can knock people with stale bread, which makes them loses their powers for the Night and for the Day after. Powers lost include passive powers, but do not include killing powers.
@ZDS: For what it's worth, this version of Azrael - the one where he sticks steadfastly to his reads and how he gets there - is generally TownAz. As much as I'd like to just forget Doha ever happened, he and I differ significantly on methodology of scum-hunting, as do you and he, obviously. All three of us find our methods effective and have the results to show that.
Axelrod did all the work necessary on WoLG, I accidentally blew my ability on ZDS, Az is town, and I'm just not getting strong reads from anyone else.
How does one "accidentally" use an ability? You must have to type it out and submit it to the mod. This is bogus. Are you stumbling around stepping on these f ***ing rakes too? Sons of *****es are all over the place.
I understand, I'm just highly disappointed by the absurd levels his steadfastness can reach. Good for him if he has had success with his methodology, it doesn't mean it's infallible.
I guess we're opposites since in my experience success comes from keeping a flexible mind.
At least I know I'll be proven right in the end, but it's a small compensation and I'm not sure he cares.
This is getting to be excessive.
I don't think anyone is enjoying reading counter-factual rants about my playstyle, in which your criticisms have already pulled a completely unprincipled 180 degree turn - "too simple", "too complex", "too arrogant", and now: "too inflexible". If you were genuinely familiar with my playstyle, you'd also know that I continually update my reads, question myself, and frequently pull 180 degree turns on a dime, when the evidence warrants it.
I've politely explained to you why I think the evidence does not seem to warrant it in this case. In reply, you've simply engaged in ad hominem and ceaseless personal attacks on my personal characteristics, integrity, and intelligence, while ignoring the fact that virtually the entire thread shares my skeptical view of your alignment in this game.
And it is a game. There is no need to take comments about your alignment personally, and there is no need to take in-game events and transmute that justifying into some kind of out-of-game vendetta.
Cool off, cut the rage, and if you've got more points to make, start presenting them calmly and logically instead of this ridiculous ad hominem. This has gone beyond the line of what is acceptable and enjoyable.
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
If I ignore all the emotional tells and the traditional scum tells, I'm left with mindset analysis. This is what Iso and I both already requested that you supply to us - a detailed account of your internal stream-consciousness throughout the game so far that makes your behavior more easily understandable from a town perspective.
You provided one, but it did not strike me as having very many indicators of being trustworthy and genuine. It was pretty basic and superficial stuff, easily faked.
So I'm looking at you, seeing no signs of a genuine townie mindset, a panoply of traditionally scum argumentative tactics, ways of processing information, and emotional responses, and I'm not seeing strong countervailing traditional townie tells.
You are currently failing a five dimensional analysis on all counts. Now, put yourself in my shoes, and try to figure out how I'm reasonably going to respond to your pinging me negatively on almost every single level of analysis that I've been able to come up with over the past eight years.
*folds arms* That's what you're up against.
There have been times in the past where I've backed off someone when they gave me a good read on just a single axis of that analysis. I have no reason to trust you on any of them, and even your role claim is a fairly damning point against you.
Given the above, I don't see any rational cause for backing off this wagon. You're reading scum, and I want you put in the ground as soon as practicable. Maybe I'm wrong, there's always that chance, but if I am, you've given me zero indications on any of the methods I use that I'm off-target, and the smart money is to put you down for the count.
@Seppel: without getting too specific, are you claiming accidental use of ability here? Or mistake of some kind? Or something else?
I'm going to go look at WOLG/Ged now....
This is still the best post ever.
First you say I'm oversimplifying in my methods, now you say I'm overcomplicating.
I'm thinking it's safe to say you just don't like the conclusion I'm reaching.
Post 205 you conveniently didn't answer. So lets hear it.
I'd love to see Iso or Cyan lynched today.
They hate us cause they ain't us.
1sr Post:
Random voting the Mod. is whatever. But question what is "quite interesting indeed," 20 posts in? Were you talking about Frophmoff here, or something else?
2nd post: Blank.
3rd Post:
First serious post. Vote Zionite for being the third vote on the AE wagon. He beings up a Zionite post from another game (in which Zionite's alignment is currently unknown?) where Zionite criticized someone else for being 3rd "random" vote on a wagon.
I'm mixed on this in that (1) I do tend to like it when people go looking at other games you have played for evidence of playstyle and such. That kind of outside work tends to show a Town mindset. But (2) the application and conclusion of this outside work seems bad here. The two situations aren't even really comparable except for both people being 3rd vote on a wagon. And (while there is, in fact, some merit to the whole "3rd person on the wagon is more likely to be scum" theory) it's not actually a good reason to vote someone. It's actually a bad reason to vote someone all by itself. Also, given Zionite's alignment is unknown is this other game, what could this possibly say about his alignment here. So this reads a little like mudslinging to me.
4th post:
Here he reaffirms his vote based on Zionite's apparent hypocrisy (for criticizing "joke" 3rd votes on wagons in the other game while being one here), says he "missed" the part where Zionite claimed his vote wasn't a joke vote, but then says even if it wasn't a joke it would be even worse, so vote stays. This looks a little like backtracking and ret-conning as he realizes his original reason for voting might be completely invalid, but he doesn't want to give up the vote and comes up with another reason, which is unstated but which appears to be "voting to policy lynch someone is scummy."
5th post: We all know that Xyre is scum though, the mod just won't let us lynch him.
You like his read on you? Really? That's just such a strange thing to say.
6th post:
Here Zionite appears to suggest that his original vote was a trap vote. WOLG is undeterred and comes up with another reason to be voting for Zionite - he's now been the 3rd vote on two wagons (joking or non-joking). Which is opportunistic and scummy. See above but just being the third vote on a wagon isn't really enough reason to place a vote on someone in my opinion.
7th post: (this one is a little longer so click the link if you want to read it)
Here Az asks if people think "flavor" claiming might be useful and WOLG pooh-poohs that idea. Which is fine in the abstract. You can be opposed to this or think it wouldn't really gain us anything. The way he goes on and says, however, that he thinks a flavor claim might lead to us gaming the mod. and running around in circles for "hundreds" of posts seems a little off. A little too extreme.
He then indicates his agreement with the ZDS wagon (without voting). This is also not inherrently scummy, but it's something scum can do - especially if it's a scumbuddy getting run up.
8th post:
This is the biggest "red flag" post for me thusfar. Seppel has apparently cancelled ZDS's lynch (by mistake?) and WOLG says he thinks it was a "solid" play. Because the wagon was moving too fast. And ZDS's play reminded him of a time when (townie) Cropcircles got run up and voted himself out of frustration. Of course, WOLG did not ever speak out against the wagon or say anything in ZDS's defense. The last thing he had said was expressing agreement with it.
ZDS posted several more times after WOLG's post, so, sure, it's possible when WOLG came back to the thread he read those posts and revised his opinion of ZDS, and found out ZDS had been pardoned at the same time. But the above post makes it look like his real opposition was for nothing more than the "speed", which is kind of alignment-neutral. You can have speedy wagons on scum as easily as on Town.
9th post:
ZDS of all people questions WOLG's remark that he disliked the "speed" of the wagon on him. Says it was Ged's vote that concerned him about the speed, and he apparently didn't want anyone claiming so early in the game. This mentality I do not understand at all. I'm like, if a player has garnered enough suspicion from enough people, let's get a move on and claim, so we can decide what to do next. Otherwise, what are we doing? Also, there's a defensive tone here with "Just because I agreed with some of the points made against you doesn't mean I wanted to lynch you" - who said anything about you wanting to lynch ZDS? Where did that come from? It's almost like WOLG is defending himself from an attack nobody has made but he's afraid someone might make. Which suggests a little too much concern about appearances and how he looks this game.
10th post:
Rather large mis-representation of Ged's post here:
Which is nothing at all like what Ged said as far as I can tell. Also another misrepresentation in the last line:
Which, again, is not at all what Ged said.
So, what I'm seeing is some inconsistent reasoning and retconning of reasons to justify his vote on Zionite. Some throwing of support towards the ZDS wagon, quickly retracted/revised when the wagon became an impossibility. Some concern about his own townie-looking appearance. And some misrepresentations of other people's posts. Coupled with an otherwise complete lack of scum-hunting - he's basically only responding to other people's posts - and I'm happy with:
Vote: WOLG
Unvote, vote WoLG
The point I was bringing up with these quotes is that you came in saying "EVERYONE CALM DOWN. Help has arrived. We're all going to be fine now." Giving that the situation you entered into was the beginning on a wagon that was picking up speed, this seems like a proper response to me. Then you flipped to voting that person for no reason other than "I'm beginning to be swayed towards the prevalent opinion that ZDS has a villainous nature."
That to me says you're straight bandwagoning with no reasons of your own, and you don't even cite what exactly is swaying you. When questioned about why you voted, you say that you are all about action and not waiting around, still not providing any actual reasons for voting other than that you wanted to hasten the lynching process.
How am I "Jumping on the wagon" when I'm not voting for, nor calling for, the lynch of ZDS? And yes, adding a "mediocre-at-best additional point" is better than just saying "I agree." Scum like to mindlessly parrot and wagon without reasons. It's something I wanted to have a response from ZDS about because the phrasing didn't set well with me, if I was afraid of "taking some heat" I wouldn't be engaging in the conversation at all, and only posting three times in two hundred posts.
Actually yes, it's pretty obvious that we should go after lurkers who mindlessly bandwagon. Your tone here is implying that it's scummy to do so, but I disagree.
-[thread=14456]The [Untitled] Avatar and Sig shop![/thread] Avatar from:[thread=25376] [Epic Graphics][/thread]
Awards:
Elegant Mafia: The Joker, Mafia MVP
unvote, Vote WoLG
I've been remiss to really go into more on this due to the fact that the other game is ongoing and I received a warning for quoting that game. But I'll try to explain my logic here. Regardless of his alignment in that game, or what his role is, in that game, he agreed with the "3rd person on wagon" logic. It's logic that I've followed and have played in many games where scum were caught on that type of bandwagoning. So when he said that he agrees with that logic, then does exactly what he said he thinks is scummy,regardless of what game it happened in, it pinged my radar. It was sloppy town play on my part to just quote his two points and think everyone would understand where I was coming from. I don't see how you think it's backtracking, because I did not, and still do not, think my vote is misplaced. I still think my original reason for voting is completely valid.
What was that about mudslinging? Explain to me how a reason is unstated but appears to be my reason. You're quoting me where I said "...he wanted to do it because of policy, which makes it even worse."
I like when people think I'm "cool."
1.) If I think someone is scum, why would I not continue to come up with reasons for voting them?
2.) People throw their votes around for much less reason than that. I think it's a very valid reason to vote someone in the early game. He hasn't done anything so far to make me believe he's town, so my vote hasn't changed.
I can't remember the names of games in specific, but I'm fairly certain we've both seen games go "hundreds of posts" gaming the mod. It's not something I want to see here. If you think I was overreaching a bit, that's okay, we can disagree. I think that wagons can be good if there are people with solid logic and points on them. Az and Iso had points I agreed with, I didn't agree with the rest of the wagon and push for lynch.
My main opposition to the wagon was the speed. I only felt like two of the people voting ZDS really had legitimate reasons to be doing so. I didn't speak out against the wagon because at that point it was garnering really good discussion, and I assumed anyone else jumping on would be providing good reasons for doing so. I ended up being incorrect in that assumption.
1.) I didn't feel that that early in the game, anyone had garnered justified suspicion from enough people.
2.) In the post I'm responding to, ZDS had juxtaposed my two quotes and asked me the same question you're asking me now. I read an eyebrow smiley and the tone in the words "what point exactly" in his question as him finding that suspicious, so I clarified my reasoning. [/Quote]
Ged defended his vote when questioned about it by saying:
That sounds like he's saying he wanted the lynch to happen quickly. The words I've bolded are the buzzwords that led me to that assumption. In my mind, saying that we shouldn't be waiting around to lynch someone is trying for a quick lynch.
Explain to me what you think he's actually saying here.
At that point, he had not posted much content, and the only reasoning he stated for his inaction was that he was "playing at that game" in regards to "waiting for him to post more stuff." He did not explicitly state that was his reasons, but how he stated it made me think that. That's why I questioned him about it.
I was asking Ged questions, not making accusations and assuming my read of his actions were his intentions behind his actions. I wasn't "misrepresenting" him, I was asking what he meant by his posts.
You mentioned mudslinging? This is full of words with largely negative connotations and were used specifically to paint me in a scummy light. That's okay though, I look forward to your response.
-[thread=14456]The [Untitled] Avatar and Sig shop![/thread] Avatar from:[thread=25376] [Epic Graphics][/thread]
Awards:
Elegant Mafia: The Joker, Mafia MVP
That's why I was probing AE about Ged. The immediate swing of suspicion onto Ged struck me as suspect, especially when AE said that it was a good idea because ZDS said so(paraphrase, but still). It's worth noting that AE has still not at all explained why he named ZDS there. He said it 'could have been anyone', but that doesn't really make sense.
And of course, the 2 people that AE would like to see lynched today just happen to be exactly the 2 people that have been pressuring him.
@DYH: You clearly tried to trap me. My reaction there has nothing to do with my alignment, I'm just insulted that you thought that would go unnoticed.
I don't know what people are on about when it comes to WOLG. I don't see anything wrong with his posts thus far. I'll summarize and post my thoughts on AE.
Funny you should say that since several players completely ignored my comments on Cyan, as well - you included.
Yeah, I got that part. It certainly wasn't meant as an insult, but it was meant to get you to respond.
But you've chosen to ignore the part I actually care about - the commentary on your behavior. Nothing?
Can't really agree with you here, either.
@WOLG: Who did you think were the two legit reads on ZDS?
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
*think think think*
Hrmmm. Yeah, I don't know that I can get behind this. Especially since ZDS just jumped on it like a starving velociraptor.
............................................________
....................................,.-'"...................``~.,
.............................,.-"..................................."-.,
.........................,/...............................................":,
.....................,?......................................................,
.................../...........................................................,}
................./......................................................,:`^`..}
.............../...................................................,:"........./
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../
............./__.(....."~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_...."~,_........"~,_....................,:`........_/
..........{.._$;_......"=,_......."-,_.......,.-~-,},.~";/....}
...........((.....*~_......."=-._......";,,./`..../"............../
...,,,___.`~,......"~.,....................`.....}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-"
............/.`~,......`-...................................../
.............`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....,__
,,_..........}.>-._...................................|..............`=~-,
.....`=~-,__......`,.................................
...................`=~-,,.,...............................
................................`:,,...........................`..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_..........._,-%.......`
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
And now that ZDS is on the WOLG wagon, maybe you guys will realize that the wagon is bad.
Axelrod made a good case, but WOLG defended himself well. Zionite's vote on WOLG was awful(actually everything that Zionite has done this game has been awful), but ZDS' vote is even worse. His obvious lack of sincerity in his vote on me/suspicion of Iso couldn't be more apparent now.
bus vote bus vote
It's not a contradiction at all. I thought there were valid points against him, but was not pursuing a lynch. I was glad when Sep stopped the lynch because people, including you, were mindlessly jumping on the wagon. Just like you're doing here. As soon as everyone who has actually given reasons for voting me is responded to and they understand my point of view, I'm going to give a full train of thought on why you're scum and haven't taken my vote off you.
Did you read the part of the post before that? My original reasons for voting him are still valid to me. Exactly where were they invalidated? Also: He's been continually acting scummy, so my vote has stayed there.
Can you dumb this down for me? I have no idea what you're asking. I re-read the chain of events, and this sounds like a completely legitimate response to Axelrod's point.
Axel claimed I never spoke out, I state why I never spoke out. He said it looked like my opposition was speed, I agreed.
What is making all the eybrows, and why the bandwagon vote? I'm not reading anything here saying that you think I'm scum, that you think anything I did was scummy or wrong.
Az and Iso were the only ones that had actually given reasons for voting for ZDS.
-[thread=14456]The [Untitled] Avatar and Sig shop![/thread] Avatar from:[thread=25376] [Epic Graphics][/thread]
Awards:
Elegant Mafia: The Joker, Mafia MVP
How can I be "mindlessly jumping on the wagon" with "valid points against him"?
I look forward to seeing what you come up with.
If you had said "man, I am loving all this randomness" it would have come across as much more natural than "oh yes...quite interesting indeed." The former seems spontaneous. The latter calculated.
1st, it's not simply 3rd on a wagon that we were talking about, I thought, but 3rd "random" vote - which you were suggesting (that Zionite was suggesting) was a tell. And Zionite was therefore being hypocritical for "randomly" placing his vote in this game when he had argued it was a scummy thing to do in the other game.
The backtracking comes in when you (at least appear) to recognize that maybe Zionite's vote wasn't so random after all, but you continue to press forward anyway, saying "well, even if it wasn't random, it was still scummy for this other reason, so vote stays...."
Are you accusing me of mudslinging here? I'm trying to parse your post. If I've got something incorrect, feel free to point it out, but I am slinging no mud. You did change your reasoning, yes? You went from disliking the vote because it looked like a random 3rd on the wagon to disliking it because it was advocating for a policy lynch. And the issue here is that you now seem to be holding onto both these reasons for disliking the vote simultaneously, even though they are incompatible. Either the vote was random or it wasn't. It was seriously advocating for a policy lynch or it wasn't. You seem to be saying "whatever it was, it was scummy, so I'm happy either way."
And maybe it wasn't so much your reason being "unstated" as it was you skipping saying why you felt this was even "worse."
Well, I'm saying that just being the 3rd vote on a wagon isn't much to go on all by itself. You now seem like you're saying "sure, but, you don't need that much to vote someone early on." And that's true too. But again, it seems like you're now revising your reasons for voting some more. Or at least characterizing it differently. It you want to go "hey, it's early, no biggie" you can do that, but this would also be the first time you said something like that.
So just tell me, how strongly do you feel Zionite is scum right now?
I mean, Az hadn't even actually proposed that we should do this. He wasn't asking for other people's opinions on whether we should do this. He was more like pondering to himself out loud. But you immediately shut it down with I don't want to get sidetracked with hundreds of posts that would just be running in circles anyway....
I don't think I care about this one though.
Wait, are you saying you formed your opinion that the wagon was bad before Seppel shut it down. And you deliberately chose not to say anything about it? Because you liked the discussion it was generating and you assumed that anyone who jumped on would be providing "good reasons" for their votes?
How does that make any kind of sense?
At no point does Ged even mention the word "lynch." The entire context of the post was in terms of ZDS being forced to claim. And the way I read it was Ged saying he didn't know how many votes ZDS had on him at the time of his vote, but didn't want to bother waiting to cast the vote. Which could be problematic for other reasons, but is simply not the same thing as advocating for a speedy-lynch, which is how you characterized it.
You appeared to be asking him fairly loaded questions which were misrepresenting what he had said. That's my issue, not that you ask him questions.
I'm glad it's okay.
Funny you should say this is funny.
Very possibly.
You were not the one making any valid points. Your vote post:
No reasons stated at all for voting him = mindlessly jumping on the wagon.
In fact, the only time you list any type of negative reaction to him is saying an argument he made AFTER you voted was a straw man, and calling him desperate scum.
(Your vote: post 83, your negative reaction post 109, quoting his post 85)
-[thread=14456]The [Untitled] Avatar and Sig shop![/thread] Avatar from:[thread=25376] [Epic Graphics][/thread]
Awards:
Elegant Mafia: The Joker, Mafia MVP
I could reiterate the entire case against ZDS, but it's a waste of time at this point. I was happy with a ZDS lynch. The case was solid and his reactions telling. Just because I didn't come up with it doesn't mean I was mindlessly jumping on the wagon. I still had to read and decide.
I'm not saying you had to reiterate the entire case. What I'm saying is that you never listed any reasons for voting him. You didn't even say which points you agreed with, or at the least who you agreed with. I'm not saying you have to list reasons now, I'm saying that you didn't when it mattered.
@ax: Before you make another "wolg is ignoring me" post: I'm at work and on my phone and can't respond to your large post via small keyboard.
-[thread=14456]The [Untitled] Avatar and Sig shop![/thread] Avatar from:[thread=25376] [Epic Graphics][/thread]
Awards:
Elegant Mafia: The Joker, Mafia MVP
Stupendous.
Ah, I see your confusion. When I arrived asking people to calm down, what I meant was that I had something important to say (important is really an unnecessary adjective here given how important everything I say is) and they should listen to me. Then once my question as answered they should feel free to return to whatever loudness they were occupied with before. I never had a quarrel with the ZDS wagon.
Perhaps you are right that I should have provided more of a reason for my vote, but I wasn't thinking in specifics at the time. Big picture action man, yes? I read the Az-ZDS fight and found ZDS coming out looking worse for it. Then I voted. Call it gut, if you like. And with guts of steel-like strength, I tend to trust mine.
...
I'm...
...
pulls out glasses
I swear you voted ZDS there.
puts away glasses
Excuse me, I need to hide in a corner and confront my apparent morality for a moment.
Hm.
I'm rather shaken here, and I withdraw the point you are addressing here. But I don't necessarily agree with this quote in general. While not universal, I often find good-hearted souls are more likely to be fine just agreeing with an argument while those tainted by evil find the need to justify themselves. It's a minor thing.
My experience has taught me I'm just as likely to find someone lurking because they're lazy as it is they're malicious. You may disagree. The plan never suited me as a way to successfully find criminals, though it does wonders for spurring content from the quiet.
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to re-asses now that my eyes are back in my skull.
That's how I talk, I'm sorry that it doesn't sound natural.
My original vote and scum read on him was for opportunistically jumping on the wagon via a vote that I perceived as joke in RVS. In his next post he "actually wanted to lynch AE." That's not me "recognizing that maybe Zionite's vote wasn't so random," That's Zionite specifically stating that it wasn't. His new reasoning for voting read even scummier to me, because jumping as the third vote on a wagon for "policy" is not pro town.
I was given a new reason to keep my vote there.
The mudslinging comment wasn't supposed to be there. It was meant for my last line and I apparently didn't notice it got put in the wrong place in my preview.
That's not incorrect. I thought that the mindset behind his vote was scummy, so I voted him. He later comes out to say that it was a "trap" for AE that someone else botched, and I find THAT reason for his vote scummy as well. Joke vote/serious vote/trap vote, no matter what he is CLAIMING that his vote meant, it reads as scum opportunism to me.
More and more with every post he makes. He's the only person I have solid pegged as scum. I don't want to deflect from my own wagon at the moment, because it's generating good content, but I believe Zionite is the best target we have for scum at the moment. I've made some points against him in my past few posts interacting with him.
Az and Iso were votes 1 and 2 on the wagon, they had stated reasons.
(OMG Hold up. Small digression: In my post #84 I accused Zionite of being the third vote on ZDS...He wasn't, Seppel was. Why did no one tell me I was blatently wrong in that accusation? OH WAIT, Seppel tried to, and I was super confused as to why he was defending Zionite. {He responded to a post in which I was quoting and directly responding to Zionite.})
Seppel was vote three and gave a reason. Zionite was 4th and mindlessly bandwagoned, which I've pointed out as being scummy.
Some good discussion was generated, and I agreed with some of the points on ZDS and mentioned something that bothered me about his play.
Then Ged came out of hiding and mindlessly bandwagoned, putting ZDS in claim range.
That moment is exactly when I thought the wagon was bad and moving too fast. I believe I've said that before. I didn't "choose not to say anything about it" I had not checked the thread again from my post 127 to 169, or I would have flipped out on Ged immediately.
Ok, I see what you're saying. I appear to have mischaracterized his post, and for that I appologize. In my mind, voting is for lynching. If you're putting someone into "claim range" you're attempting to lynch them, but I suppose he wanted the claim from ZDS to see if we should be lynching him. In light of that, Ged looks less scummy in my eyes.
-[thread=14456]The [Untitled] Avatar and Sig shop![/thread] Avatar from:[thread=25376] [Epic Graphics][/thread]
Awards:
Elegant Mafia: The Joker, Mafia MVP
All you had said about ZDS before Seppel blocked the lynch is that he is "normally so cautious." All the stuff about wanting to lynch him came after it was no longer possible. Showing support for a lynch that can't happen does nothing to hunt scum, or to help your case.
Which is very strange behavior from you. What bothers me here isn't just a change in play style. Even if your style has changed, your intellect has not, and the Cyan I am used to is much better at reading tells and picking a target.
The fact that you don't remember that he claimed might be the most telling. I think if you were really trying to figure out who is scum and who is town, you would pay enough attention to notice and remember something that important.
Also is it just me, or is Axelrod writing a lot more than normal?
Is it just me or are you writing less than usual?
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
Yes, Seppel appears to be writing much less.
I disagree with WOLG that adding a reason is necessary when adding a vote. Ged basically covered my thoughts there - I tend to find scum will tack on weak reasoning rather than just admit they're barning someone. I find the rest of his responses to Axelrod to be fine, though.
Yes, Cyan, you played Cyberspace differently than previous games, but you still had convictions and stuck to them stubbornly (RobRoy being town, Zionite scum counter-wagon early on comes immediately to mind - as well as your insistance Axelrod was scum). You didn't tiptoe around opposition and play nice with others as it feels like here.
I have to agree with Froph here, too, about not remembering ZDS had claimed.
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
Yeah, I definitely am.
Axelrod did all the work necessary on WoLG, I accidentally blew my ability on ZDS, Az is town, and I'm just not getting strong reads from anyone else.
Hey DYH, what do you make of Seppel forgetting ZDS's claim?
Hey DYH, Cyan did something earlier that indicated he wasn't paying attention, as well. Do you think that's relevant to the point or do you think that disengages the possibility that it makes him scummy?
Hey DYH, what do you make of Az misattributing something earlier involving ZDS, Cyan, and myself?
Hey DYH, are you scum?
Hey Az, what do you make of Cyan and his wagon?
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
Considering it had already been addressed (in that Froph had already pointed out Cyan being wrong), I'm not making anything of it because I can't gauge whether or not he's sincere. It's similar to his "drunk posts".
The problem with his comment about ZDS goes beyond just not paying attention - it blows up his entire point that the wagon produced nothing worthwhile. It's as if he's trying to handwave that entire portion of the game away.
This is different than his 'not paying attention' in Cyberspace, as he basically just didn't understand the game rules, didn't bother to read them, and winged it.
One was about mechanics, the other is about intent.
I had to go look to find what you were talking about. The "meta defense" conversation? I think Az had enough valid points against ZDS that's it's not damning he misattributed the target. The fact ZDS was using that as a defense is what I took issue with, anyway.
No.
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
Unvote;
Vote: Zionite
I hate cases that are based on nothing more than changes in meta. Especially when the trend began in a previous game.
No one's pinging at the moment.
WellofLostGnomes - 3 (Ged, Seppel, Zionite)
Archmage Eternal - 1 (Iso)
Zionite - 2 (WellofLostGnomes, Axelrod)
Cyan - 3 (FrophMoff, DYH, ZDS)
Who You Gonna Call? - Azrael
Not Voting: Archmage Eternal, Cyan
What happened to WoLG?
@FrophMoff: The entirety of the ZDS wagon occurred within a single real life day, which was the second day that the game was active. A day in which I didn't post. Before that, the only relevant subject had been Zionite's 'policy vote' on AE. A subject that I was heavily involved in. Your accusations are groundless.
Didn't have a chance to read over AE yesterday, was too involved with work to do a PBPA. Doing so today, along with Zionite hopefully.
@ZDS: For what it's worth, this version of Azrael - the one where he sticks steadfastly to his reads and how he gets there - is generally TownAz. As much as I'd like to just forget Doha ever happened, he and I differ significantly on methodology of scum-hunting, as do you and he, obviously. All three of us find our methods effective and have the results to show that.
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
And part of my ability is a day ability so I believe it. ZDS is still scum, though.
How does one "accidentally" use an ability? You must have to type it out and submit it to the mod. This is bogus. Are you stumbling around stepping on these f ***ing rakes too? Sons of *****es are all over the place.
They hate us cause they ain't us.
This is getting to be excessive.
I don't think anyone is enjoying reading counter-factual rants about my playstyle, in which your criticisms have already pulled a completely unprincipled 180 degree turn - "too simple", "too complex", "too arrogant", and now: "too inflexible". If you were genuinely familiar with my playstyle, you'd also know that I continually update my reads, question myself, and frequently pull 180 degree turns on a dime, when the evidence warrants it.
I've politely explained to you why I think the evidence does not seem to warrant it in this case. In reply, you've simply engaged in ad hominem and ceaseless personal attacks on my personal characteristics, integrity, and intelligence, while ignoring the fact that virtually the entire thread shares my skeptical view of your alignment in this game.
And it is a game. There is no need to take comments about your alignment personally, and there is no need to take in-game events and transmute that justifying into some kind of out-of-game vendetta.
Cool off, cut the rage, and if you've got more points to make, start presenting them calmly and logically instead of this ridiculous ad hominem. This has gone beyond the line of what is acceptable and enjoyable.
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've caught my game up to speed so now I'll read up on what I missed here and respond to stuff.
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
(figuratively)