The fact that Mr. Santorum jumps to the conclusion that Anak is talking about Day Chat without any sort of reference to when the scum can talk is a jump in logic. The catch of the slip without a vote doesn't mesh up together. Based on this posting from Mr. Santorum and the lack of voting I would believe him to be a good candidate (no pun intended :laugh:) of being a scum buddy to Anak.
Void, here you have Anak, Lennon and Rick Santorum as scum. Who else would you peg as their buddies? Finding all of the scum Day 1 would be awesome.
I have been thinking about what the others said about your play and slept on it. I believe I've been tunneling you. I've been operating on a "guilty until proven innocent" principle which is terrible, since there's about 3/4ths of the town that are innocent. Looking at you from an "innocent until proven guilty" view, your posts read extremely new player. I can't be positive you're not scum, but that doesn't mean I need to tunnel you, since if you are scum, you'll slip up later. Unvote
Do you typically start from a "guilty until proven innocent" principle when judging people?
Yes, the meta I had been in often had people jumping at shadows. So every little thing often got over-blown. And considering how my last game ended, it's why I've had so much trouble. The scum easily fooled us into jumping at shadows. I do not want to repeat that mistake.
[QUOTE=Captain Tzymo;/comments/10873109]
I still need to ask, what about swishh seemed to be fooling around?
Do you feel as though he wasn't?
No, it read to me as a joke. A weird joke, but still a joke. What I want to know is why a joke is enough to vote someone. It's even more minor than what I was jumping at Lennon for.
I just want to get this clear. You all think Lennon is just a noob that's flailing? I mean, I can accept that I might be wrong, it was just that all his reactions seemed... off to me.
I'm not reading Lennon as flailing so much as I am reading Lennon as a complete and utter newb. I have not seen anything from Lennon that points towards him being scum or town at the moment.
I just want to get this clear. You all think Lennon is just a noob that's flailing? I mean, I can accept that I might be wrong, it was just that all his reactions seemed... off to me.
I fail...to see the flail. What about his reactions felt like scum flailing?
Saying that swishh was fooling around felt like he was struggling to find a valid reason to vote.
In this post, you quote Lennonmint's 155, but you fail to mention his 156, in which he provides some content. Why did you ignore that, if you are attacking him for a lack of content?
You think "But if i was too vote it would be for swishh because he seems to fool around alot which might mean something" is content? He fence-sits, and then says that swishh is fooling around. How? How is swishh fooling around? I provided quotes of Lennon's, showing his weak play. And the noob card is just icing on the cake.
I guess I didn't ignore it?
True: once Rhand called you out on ignoring the content that swishh had provided, you stopped ignoring it. But that doesn't change my question. Why, when writing up post 160 about Lennonmint not providing content, did you quote his post that indeed had no content, while ignoring the post immediately under it that did?
Because it's about as useless as any other post. I only needed one of the recent posts, not all of them. I mean, he says if he was to vote it'd be for swishh... so do it. And "because he seems to fool around alot"? Why not just put "because I feel like it", it's the same amount of information. Which is none.
i was trying to add content to why i would vote for him and not just cast a random vote that meant nothing
I have been thinking about what the others said about your play and slept on it. I believe I've been tunneling you. I've been operating on a "guilty until proven innocent" principle which is terrible, since there's about 3/4ths of the town that are innocent. Looking at you from an "innocent until proven guilty" view, your posts read extremely new player. I can't be positive you're not scum, but that doesn't mean I need to tunnel you, since if you are scum, you'll slip up later. Unvote
I still need to ask, what about swishh seemed to be fooling around?
In this post, you quote Lennonmint's 155, but you fail to mention his 156, in which he provides some content. Why did you ignore that, if you are attacking him for a lack of content?
You think "But if i was too vote it would be for swishh because he seems to fool around alot which might mean something" is content? He fence-sits, and then says that swishh is fooling around. How? How is swishh fooling around? I provided quotes of Lennon's, showing his weak play. And the noob card is just icing on the cake.
I guess I didn't ignore it?
True: once Rhand called you out on ignoring the content that swishh had provided, you stopped ignoring it. But that doesn't change my question. Why, when writing up post 160 about Lennonmint not providing content, did you quote his post that indeed had no content, while ignoring the post immediately under it that did?
Because it's about as useless as any other post. I only needed one of the recent posts, not all of them. I mean, he says if he was to vote it'd be for swishh... so do it. And "because he seems to fool around alot"? Why not just put "because I feel like it", it's the same amount of information. Which is none.
In this post, you quote Lennonmint's 155, but you fail to mention his 156, in which he provides some content. Why did you ignore that, if you are attacking him for a lack of content?
You think "But if i was too vote it would be for swishh because he seems to fool around alot which might mean something" is content? He fence-sits, and then says that swishh is fooling around. How? How is swishh fooling around? I provided quotes of Lennon's, showing his weak play. And the noob card is just icing on the cake.
I just want to get this clear. You all think Lennon is just a noob that's flailing? I mean, I can accept that I might be wrong, it was just that all his reactions seemed... off to me.
Why does people disagreeing with you mean that you're wrong?
It doesn't. But Lennon is either scum or he isn't, so one of the two disagreeing groups is wrong. What I'm saying is that I'm not afraid to say "Yeah, I totally had the wrong read on Lennon" if my mind is changed. Right now, I'm trying to figure out if I'm being blinded by what I thought was bad play or if I'm right and he is scum.
I saw Lennon's reaction to Void's little bit of pressure scummy. I wouldn't say town couldn't react that way either, though... and after my vote to get more reactions out of Lennon, I'm happy with how he responded. He was much more calm. Unvote: Lennon
I think it's far too soon to put any alignment to Lennonmint's posts. It's the sign of a new player, but that doesn't make him scum yet. I first want to see more of him before I will be able to make a better assessment of him.
I'm not going to pile on with a vote at this point, but I would like to hear more from Swishh regarding his comment.
EtR]Hmmm. I didn't vote because I didn't think it was really worthy of a vote. I didn't see the action as scummy but was interested in his thoughts from the statement.
And furthermore, I don't see these 2 posts jiving here from EtR. From starting your response to Vox with "Hmmm", it stood out as you being careful, and then you go on to say you didn't think it was worthy of a vote.
But I see your statement about not wanting to pile on "at this point" to mean that you didn't vote only because it would be seen as piling on, not because you didn't think it was unwarranted.
It was meant to mean that at this point I didn't see it necessary to vote, but depending on his response I may. I didn't see the comment as scummy but more curious. Being as this is Swishh's first game, I needed more before I considered placing a vote.
I'm not going to pile on with a vote at this point, but I would like to hear more from Swishh regarding his comment.
How is one vote in a 19-player game "piling on"?
So apparently, "pilling on" is a horrible choice of words. Noted. I again meant it more from the perspective that it wasn't something that I deemed vote worthy at that point in time.
[QUOTE=Lennonmint80;/comments/10873036]I dont think any thing big enough has happened for my vote to be needed im sorry if "skittish" this is my first game of mafia
Seriously guys? We have someone who avoids giving analyzable content, and when pressured about it, plays the noob card? Let's lynch Lennon.
Alliteration ftw.
This is another example of going after someone that is low fruit.
@etr: can you explain what you mean with the fruit thing?
Basically, low hanging fruit is the easiest one to pick. In this case, I mean that if Captain T is scum, it appears that he is going after what would be the easiest mislynch.
I see. I share that idea on captain t (and everyone else who is voting for lennon for that matter).
I don't see it on void voting for Anak. How is that an easy mislynch? Easy implies that the wagon will gather votes without too much pushing, right?
I just want to get this clear. You all think Lennon is just a noob that's flailing? I mean, I can accept that I might be wrong, it was just that all his reactions seemed... off to me.
Why would being scrutinized for completely avoiding content be better than the possibility of having inconsistencies?
Because there's nothing that anyone can point to and say "This is not town mindset." It's an overall behavior, so rather than say "Look at this post, it's bad for this reason. This post, it's also bad for another reason. And finally, this post has this thing wrong with it." I end up having to go "His behavior is not town for this reason." Alternatively, look at my posts. You might be able to find things wrong with individual posts and say "Here's what's wrong with this post, and the reason this post is bad, and finally this post. Also, he's aggressive." Does that help explain it?
So how is "completely avoiding content" not something that can be pointed to?
Bolding emphasis is mine.
The only thing to point toward is the avoiding content, rather than any specific posts. There's a LOT LESS that you can end up using for or against a player who is posting fluff.
Why would being scrutinized for completely avoiding content be better than the possibility of having inconsistencies?
Because there's nothing that anyone can point to and say "This is not town mindset." It's an overall behavior, so rather than say "Look at this post, it's bad for this reason. This post, it's also bad for another reason. And finally, this post has this thing wrong with it." I end up having to go "His behavior is not town for this reason." Alternatively, look at my posts. You might be able to find things wrong with individual posts and say "Here's what's wrong with this post, and the reason this post is bad, and finally this post. Also, he's aggressive." Does that help explain it?
[B]unvote[/B] Teh JeY. I think I misread her enthousiasm for nervousness.
The pressure didn't bring her off balance. The posting of her whole thought process makes what she types very hard to fake.
I don't like the votes on lennon. The noobcard is not a scumtell. A town noob has just as many reasons to say he has no experience as a scum noob.
Captain Tzymo is quick to "gotcha" him for that and adds that lennon is refusing to give content, clearly ignoring lennon's next post where he says he is suspicious of swishh.
[B]vote: captain tzymo[/vote]
You think "But if i was too vote it would be for swishh because he seems to fool around alot which might mean something" is content? He fence-sits, and then says that swishh is fooling around. How? How is swishh fooling around? I provided quotes of Lennon's, showing his weak play. And the noob card is just icing on the cake.
How is the noob card scummy?
How is weak play scummy, given the noob card?
Specifically, what makes him more likely scum than a town noob?
EBP: This will apply to Wessel's question as well (basically the same).
The noob card isn't scummy. Weak play isn't scummy. What's scummy (and weak play) are posts that add nothing to the discussion. Look at how he responds to Void.
My name is based off a random paper i found when i was 6 i was trying to come up with an rpg name so my mom looked at some random papers and we got lennonmint its been my name for everything ever since then
Do you have nothing else to say about the game?
your quick to jump on my back its the first day
We got a comment about swishh as his first real thing about the game, and that was anemic. By avoiding content, he can avoid being scrutinized for inconsistencies. Add to that when he does get scrutinized, it's "I'm a noob" with a quick add-on of a player, rather than "here, let me tell you how I feel about some other players".
The noob card in this context is a way of explaining away weaknesses in arguments, without actually covering those weaknesses.
Well, I'm certainly not hiding anything
I assume he knows who I really am behind this half-mask
OMG! I love followed thread notification thing!
Come now, you should know who I am. As a Captain, I'm automatically believed when I have spoilers!
I agree with Lanxal, he's a way cooler mod!
Void, here you have Anak, Lennon and Rick Santorum as scum. Who else would you peg as their buddies? Finding all of the scum Day 1 would be awesome.
Yes, the meta I had been in often had people jumping at shadows. So every little thing often got over-blown. And considering how my last game ended, it's why I've had so much trouble. The scum easily fooled us into jumping at shadows. I do not want to repeat that mistake.
No, it read to me as a joke. A weird joke, but still a joke. What I want to know is why a joke is enough to vote someone. It's even more minor than what I was jumping at Lennon for.
Thanks.
Saying that swishh was fooling around felt like he was struggling to find a valid reason to vote.
For mafia, throwing things out to see what sticks.
I have been thinking about what the others said about your play and slept on it. I believe I've been tunneling you. I've been operating on a "guilty until proven innocent" principle which is terrible, since there's about 3/4ths of the town that are innocent. Looking at you from an "innocent until proven guilty" view, your posts read extremely new player. I can't be positive you're not scum, but that doesn't mean I need to tunnel you, since if you are scum, you'll slip up later.
Unvote
I still need to ask, what about swishh seemed to be fooling around?
Because it's about as useless as any other post. I only needed one of the recent posts, not all of them. I mean, he says if he was to vote it'd be for swishh... so do it. And "because he seems to fool around alot"? Why not just put "because I feel like it", it's the same amount of information. Which is none.
It doesn't. But Lennon is either scum or he isn't, so one of the two disagreeing groups is wrong. What I'm saying is that I'm not afraid to say "Yeah, I totally had the wrong read on Lennon" if my mind is changed. Right now, I'm trying to figure out if I'm being blinded by what I thought was bad play or if I'm right and he is scum.
I just want to get this clear. You all think Lennon is just a noob that's flailing? I mean, I can accept that I might be wrong, it was just that all his reactions seemed... off to me.
Bolding emphasis is mine.
The only thing to point toward is the avoiding content, rather than any specific posts. There's a LOT LESS that you can end up using for or against a player who is posting fluff.
Because there's nothing that anyone can point to and say "This is not town mindset." It's an overall behavior, so rather than say "Look at this post, it's bad for this reason. This post, it's also bad for another reason. And finally, this post has this thing wrong with it." I end up having to go "His behavior is not town for this reason." Alternatively, look at my posts. You might be able to find things wrong with individual posts and say "Here's what's wrong with this post, and the reason this post is bad, and finally this post. Also, he's aggressive." Does that help explain it?
My vote on him was RVS. I've found a reason to leave it there.
EBP: This will apply to Wessel's question as well (basically the same).
The noob card isn't scummy. Weak play isn't scummy. What's scummy (and weak play) are posts that add nothing to the discussion. Look at how he responds to Void.
We got a comment about swishh as his first real thing about the game, and that was anemic. By avoiding content, he can avoid being scrutinized for inconsistencies. Add to that when he does get scrutinized, it's "I'm a noob" with a quick add-on of a player, rather than "here, let me tell you how I feel about some other players".
The noob card in this context is a way of explaining away weaknesses in arguments, without actually covering those weaknesses.