You didn't misread the post, Gigas1. You misunderstood it in a way that is uniquely scummy, because town Gigas1 would get the reference and do something along the lines of:
Does that sound like anything I'd say? I understood the reference. My thought process went something like this:
"Mu made a reference to the hat, how humorous! Wait... tezzeret responded seriously to that? What's going on in his head that would make him respond in that way? Better vote to find out."
Or at the very least vote for Tezzeret12 out of a joke. This is not a case of town misunderstanding town because they didn't think things through, it is a case of scum misunderstanding town because that scum can't think in a townie mindset.
And what, exactly, is the scum mindset in this case? What is scum gigas's thought process. Is it:
"Mu made a reference to the hat, how humorous! Tezzeret responded with a joke...I bet I can get him lynched for that."
If not, could you please tell me what scum-gigas would gain from this? Does scum-gigas have amnesia, and is unable to remember the last time he was lynched? Note that that was the first time I'd been mislynched since my first game. I remember it. So why, as scum-gigas, would I not just ignore that post? Does scum-gigas understand it was a joke? If yes, then scum-gigas belongs in a mental institution.
In fact, there is no way scum-gigas couldn't understand this was a joke. If I was scum, and tezzeret was town, I would know he was town, and therefore the fact that he was joking would be obvious to me.
He was voting me for mentioning the hat! That was the joke! I completely fail to see how you wouldn't understand that he was joking given all the context surrounding that exchange! Furthermore, low risk high reward? What scum anywhere would think they could get me lynched over a joke reference to the hat? Why would you think that a scum anywhere would think they could get me lynched over a joke reference to the hat? Gigas1, your town play is much better than this.
The high reward is extremely unlikely to happen, yes. But that doesn't mean it isn't a reward. At basically no risk, and the chance of a high payoff, what scum wouldn't do it?
And yes, I know my town game is typically better than this. But is misreading a single post really a lynch-worthy scumtell?
This post is a series of Gigas...
-Taking pressure off of two people despite a legitimate claim
-Putting suspicion of a team for no reason. In fact, scum tend to not joke with each other, which is what Mu and Tezz are doing.
Additionally, his "defense" post was mostly just a series of irritated appeals to emotion, and Sir Mu already picked apart at least some of his arguments (particularly the one about misunderstanding the joke).
Learn what appeal to emotion is before accusing somebody of using it. Yes, I am irritated because the town, and likely some scum, is using absolutely horrendous reasoning to try to get me lynched. However, I used exactly one appeal to emotion in there: Saying it would really tick me off if I got lynched over this. If there's another, I invite you to share it.
And now, to respond to the "taking pressure off of two people despite a legitimate claim:"
They weren't legitimate claims. They were horribly awful claims. Think through the intent of a person's post when determining whether they're towny or scummy. Voting for yourself in the RVS is just random. Claiming scum makes NO sense from a scum mindset.
Presumably, he was voting for mentioning the hat. Pretending you were voting just based on a hat got you lynched in the past. It's unlikely to work again, but not impossible. If he was scum, it was a low risk, high reward move. He risked just about nothing, as he could claim it was joking if he was called on it, and high reward if anybody voted you and formed a wagon. If that fails, he could claim he was joking and form a wagon on anybody who joined him. So there, plenty of scum reasons for him to do it. Town reasons are to be silly. Seeing as how I'm the only person that didn't read it as joking, I conclude that he likely was being silly.
I agree as a generality, I disagree with regards to Mafia. Ideas and ideals as to optimal play and scumtells change all the time based on the discussion of these ideas and ideals.
I disagree. Generally people will keep the same opinions over a period of ~2 months. However, I can understand your point.
It was logic I used in the past? I do not remember this. I demand you provide a quotation from Seance to prove this. Also, even if I did use it Seance, well, my play was horrid in Seance.
So do this, but it won't make any difference any way?
Also, allow me to attempt some mind reading and say that I think you are referring to my hat vote on Pinky's Brain. I did not vote her because she placed the second RVS on someone. I voted her as part of the hat-touting persona.
So you made the right vote, for the wrong reasons. That clearly means the right reasons are wrong, correct?
Furthermore, it was merely coincidence that I was correct, and this should not be taken as any sort of evidence that placing the second RVS on a person is scummy.
That is called "non-sequiter." You guessing and getting it right doesn't mean there was no good reasoning for him being scum, nor is it evidence against the notion that placing a second random vote on a person is scummy.
[QUOTE=Sir Mu;/comments/10791264]
How could you have not viewed that as a joke, knowing the context?
Because he got mad at you for claiming your joke was legit, so I thought it was unlikely he would claim his was legit.
In Seance mafia I called my vote legitimate multiple times and you didn't call me out as scummy; you knew it was a joke. I fail to believe that your sarcasm broke inbetween these two games. Vote stands until Gigas1 explains himself farther. Even then, it might still stand, depending on his explanations.
In that game, I believed you had good reasons, but just pretended they were bad. That was because I thought (correctly) pinky was scum for putting the second random vote one someone.
1. I do not think you are scummy because I disagree with the whole second person on the wagon thing. I just thing you're wrong.
Okay, we can agree to disagree on this point. I thought you said this in the past, but regrettably I was wrong. You never explicitly stated you thought that was a tell.
2. Once again, I did it, vote stands in this regard.
When you did it, I thought it was for pinky putting the second random vote on someone, but you were just being silly when describing your reasons. This time, I thought that tezz was going for an easy lynch target, because his reasons were far less ridiculous than "because of a hat."
Let's just look at the logic of this. If you did something in the past, it's likely you will do that in the future. Do you agree or disagree? This statement is logically fine, it's just that I was wrong about the initial statement.
I'm going to answer my own question in an effort to be a less arcane, better Mafia player.
You are scummy because of this post, bolded part:
You are attempting to proliferate false statements through the thread to the more impressionable new players by using linguistic tools designed to paint your stance as common sense.
This was logic you used in Seance mafia. And, let's not forget, it was correct. At least, I think you used it, or I used it and you said you agreed with it. One of those two. Oh, by the way, than linguistic tool is called Dogmatism. And I didn't use it, what I meant was that it was logic you had used in the past, and should therefore recognize this time. And if you call this a scummy backtrack, I'm going to slap you through the computer screen because it's the exact same thing I said before, just phrased differently.
A) He's jumping on a few particular people out the gate, which feels like putting pressure off of himself. I could see collusion between him and Tezz, but I have no reads on Tezz himself yet, so that's mostly speculation.
Yes, I was getting that pressure of all those 0 people voting me off when I posted that :rolleyes:.
I like your reasoning! What's of particular note, to me at least, is that Gigas1 got onto tezzeret12 when tezz voted me for behavior that wasn't indicative of alignment. What Gigas1 failed to remember, however, is that it was the most emotionally-logical conclusion for tezz to vote me after my post, as it was a mirror to my first post in Seance and included a spoilered reference to the hat, an item which has negative connotations for tezzeret, as the game in which I ranted about the hat was, by all means, a bad game. I ruined it, plain and simple, even if it was slightly fun to do so. Having been in that game, it is odd that Gigas1 wouldn't have put 2 and 2 together unless he was opportunistic scum.
Yes, I knew it was a reference to seance mafia. As did Tezzeret12. Therefore, for him to vote for you and declare that vote to be legit made no sense from a town point of view since you were town in that game.
Gigas calling people scum with now evidence? Yeah that's pretty scummy. Also, he "presents" scum #1 and #2 but votes #2? Why is that? (directed at gigas not mu)
I voted #2 because the reasoning was stronger. I presented them in chronological order, not by strength of reasoning. Draco was for being the second vote on somebody in the RVS.
Because he jumped on my to quickly for something that was an obvious joke.
Unless he was joking too...
This is why I hate RVS.
And that is why you don't call random votes legit. Next time, perhaps include a smiley face to show you are joking? If I get lynched over this, I'm going to be seriously ticked off.
Just so I understand, the current wagon on me is based off of:
Me calling Draco scummy for being the second vote on a person in RVS. It's okay if you disagree with that, but thinking it's scummy for me to think that is just wrong.
Me calling Tezzeret scummy for voting for Sir Mu. This was caused by me thinking he was serious due to including the phrase "this is legit," which people typically don't do in random votes. Unvote because the jovial intent of that post has been pointed out to me. Yeah, yeah, scummy backtrack and all, but admitting you are wrong isn't a scum tell, and being wrong DEFINITELY isn't a scum tell.
Me saying Sir Mu should know that putting the second vote on someone in RVS is scummy. As said before, he used or agreed with this logic in the last game we played together. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable for me to find him scummy for disagreeing with it now, is it not?
VOTED FOR SELF. HISTORICALLY SPEAKING, TOWNIES DO NOT VOTE FOR SELF. SUSPICION SIGNIFICANTLY RAISED.
It's not unheard of, and barely even rare, for a townie to vote his or herself in the random phase. Regardless, he gains very little from this as scum, so I would say it is unlikely to a strong indicator of his alignment.
VOTED FOR PERSON VOTING FOR SELF USING LOGIC SIMILAR TO MINE. NULL, REGARDLESS OF EXCHANGEBANG'S ALIGNMENT.
Putting the second "random" vote on a person is typically a pretty good scumtell. You should know this. Besides, if somebody used logic similar to your's, shouldn't that be a weak town tell rather than a null tell?
TYPICALLY SPEAKING, WHEN AN INDIVIDUAL CROSSES SOMETHING OUT AND PUTS SOMETHING ELSE NEXT TO IT ON THE INTERNET, THE CROSSED OUT THING IS THE TRUTH AND THE THING NEXT TO IT IS A LIE. SUSPICION SIGNIFICANTLY RAISED.
Claiming scum in an early post is usually done by both alignments (town more than scum) to start discussion, so it's a null tell at worst.
Seriously though, I won't be doing that this game.
BEEP ENTERING MAFIA ANALYSIS MODE
ANALYZING POSTS...
VOTED FOR SELF. HISTORICALLY SPEAKING, TOWNIES DO NOT VOTE FOR SELF. SUSPICION SIGNIFICANTLY RAISED.
VOTED FOR PERSON VOTING FOR SELF USING LOGIC SIMILAR TO MINE. NULL, REGARDLESS OF EXCHANGEBANG'S ALIGNMENT.
NO RANDOM VOTE. EXPLAIN REASONING FOR LACK OF RANDOM VOTE.
TOOK JOKE TOO SERIOUSLY. HUMOR FUNCTIONS LACKING.
TYPICALLY SPEAKING, WHEN AN INDIVIDUAL CROSSES SOMETHING OUT AND PUTS SOMETHING ELSE NEXT TO IT ON THE INTERNET, THE CROSSED OUT THING IS THE TRUTH AND THE THING NEXT TO IT IS A LIE. SUSPICION SIGNIFICANTLY RAISED.
RANDOM REASON GIVEN BEHIND VOTE PLACES DISTANCE BETWEEN BRINATOO AND FLUFFYN00B. UNLIKELY THAT BOTH ARE MAFIA.
And scum #2. You know fully well that this is his town game. Or, at the very least, not indicative of his scum game. There is little question in my mind, you are scum this game.
Yes, I know there is no guarantee that was when it happened. But just watching it, you see the person run after him and then a metal bar makes contact with their head and they fall to the ground. I'd say it's pretty likely that was the cause of the broken skull.
EDIT: It appears it wasn't the first hit I was thinking of. But one of the hits before they hit the ground was a pretty hard smack across the forehead, that would be what I would guess fractured her skull.
Define "really shouldn't be counted against him". In a legal sense? You do realize that if you push someone without intent to seriously harm them and they manage to be seriously injured or die due to hitting their head either on the way down or while landing, that you could be held responsible for such an action? Whether he cracked her skull on the first hit or the fifth might make the difference between what he's charged with, but he didn't, like, get a 'free shot' in or anything.
I mean people shouldn't point to that as evidence of how much excessive force he used. A lot of people said they thought he was defending himself until he continued hitting them when they were on the ground. If the skull fracture occurred before they were on the ground, then those people shouldn't use it to say he used excessive force.
quite frankly I don't understand how people can be on the side of the McDonald's worker. self-defense is one thing, but attacking them with a metal pole - even after the threat has been neutralised - is just insane. given that one of them had a fractured skull it's obvious he was going for their heads as well, which means he could easily have killed them. I'm fully in support of every punishment the guy's being given.
The fractured skull likely happened with the first hit, where the person is running at him and he whacks her in the head. Most people seem to agree that he was fine with hitting him before they were on the ground, so the fractured skull really shouldn't be counted against him since it was the first hit he made. Of course, if he really was hitting them on the head once they were on the ground, it's a different situation.
EP just said that you NEVER stopped them. Waiting for clarification.
Yes, I never stopped them in that 3 hour time. After that, there was the DesCoures modkill, and I made the decision to allow them to nighttalk. Between the 3 hour period and the night after the modkill, there was no communication.
Canada is a scum role because you're Canadian, LN.
Agreed @ G_D.
Gigas, thanks for the game. I feel like a bit of it was stacked against the town in some regards, as certain elements would have caused me to act differently and perhaps not be so reckless.
Also, curious as to how the mason group's Gigas vote would have interacted with the scum's Gigas vote.
Canada was scum just because in the show he was portrayed as getting quite upset at being ignored, so I thought it might make sense for him to want revenge.
Also, the FoS -> Vote role is awful. It's flavorful and seems cool, but in practice it is either useless or breaks the game in half by lynching out of nowhere without any non-mafia knowing how. The ability should not be able to cause a lynch and result in a vote count being posted upon resolution.
Yes, in hindsight I agree. That role was leftover from when the game was in earlier stages and put limits on the number of votes/unvotes allowed in a day, so FOS was the natural replacement. It should have been removed when that restriction was.
Quote from Asian Invasio »
On a lighter note, I do like the mafia redirection ability and see Dagger's influence in the "lowest post" restriction.
Dagger was great. He helped a lot with designing this and helping to get it FTQ'd, then helped with the modkill decision and a few other things throughout the game.
@ The mod, your decision to give the mafia the ability to communicate literally made the town loose. The mafia were balanced on the idea of poor communication. You then removed the only thing inhibiting them at all.
Oh yeah, giving the mafia the ability to communicate after the modkill was wrong, 100%. You have to stick to your design; you can't coddle the players because you designed the game incorrectly.
Believe me, that decision was not made lightly. My basic thought process was that it would either destroy any chances at the scum winning if I didn't give them talk, or give them a large advantage if I gave them talk. I thought that it would be less unbalancing to allow them to talk.
If this is true. I am requesting that either the mod or the entire mafia team be blacklisted. The Mod for making such a mistake. Or the mafia team for cheating. And no I am not joking.
That conversation took place in the span of 3 hours, during which I was not available. If I had been there to receive the first message, I would have responded to it to let them know they couldn't talk. By the time I responded, they had already stopped.
Yes, I now realize that Descourse's role was not a good idea. It made too much of the game depend on his play.
Deathjoey was just a weird serial killer, pretty much. I'll post the full set up tomorrow, unless someone in the spectator group wants to beat me to it.
Yeah... evaluate the strengths of arguments, don't just say "he did this, so he's automatically scum."
Does that sound like anything I'd say? I understood the reference. My thought process went something like this:
"Mu made a reference to the hat, how humorous! Wait... tezzeret responded seriously to that? What's going on in his head that would make him respond in that way? Better vote to find out."
And what, exactly, is the scum mindset in this case? What is scum gigas's thought process. Is it:
"Mu made a reference to the hat, how humorous! Tezzeret responded with a joke...I bet I can get him lynched for that."
If not, could you please tell me what scum-gigas would gain from this? Does scum-gigas have amnesia, and is unable to remember the last time he was lynched? Note that that was the first time I'd been mislynched since my first game. I remember it. So why, as scum-gigas, would I not just ignore that post? Does scum-gigas understand it was a joke? If yes, then scum-gigas belongs in a mental institution.
In fact, there is no way scum-gigas couldn't understand this was a joke. If I was scum, and tezzeret was town, I would know he was town, and therefore the fact that he was joking would be obvious to me.
I obviously didn't think it through very well.
The high reward is extremely unlikely to happen, yes. But that doesn't mean it isn't a reward. At basically no risk, and the chance of a high payoff, what scum wouldn't do it?
And yes, I know my town game is typically better than this. But is misreading a single post really a lynch-worthy scumtell?
Learn what appeal to emotion is before accusing somebody of using it. Yes, I am irritated because the town, and likely some scum, is using absolutely horrendous reasoning to try to get me lynched. However, I used exactly one appeal to emotion in there: Saying it would really tick me off if I got lynched over this. If there's another, I invite you to share it.
And now, to respond to the "taking pressure off of two people despite a legitimate claim:"
They weren't legitimate claims. They were horribly awful claims. Think through the intent of a person's post when determining whether they're towny or scummy. Voting for yourself in the RVS is just random. Claiming scum makes NO sense from a scum mindset.
Because people typically don't do things they are annoyed by.
No, not after he said it was legit. I thought he honestly thought he could get you lynched for the hat thing (again).
Presumably, he was voting for mentioning the hat. Pretending you were voting just based on a hat got you lynched in the past. It's unlikely to work again, but not impossible. If he was scum, it was a low risk, high reward move. He risked just about nothing, as he could claim it was joking if he was called on it, and high reward if anybody voted you and formed a wagon. If that fails, he could claim he was joking and form a wagon on anybody who joined him. So there, plenty of scum reasons for him to do it. Town reasons are to be silly. Seeing as how I'm the only person that didn't read it as joking, I conclude that he likely was being silly.
I disagree. Generally people will keep the same opinions over a period of ~2 months. However, I can understand your point.
So do this, but it won't make any difference any way?
Scummy, not scum.
So you made the right vote, for the wrong reasons. That clearly means the right reasons are wrong, correct?
Because he got mad at you for claiming your joke was legit, so I thought it was unlikely he would claim his was legit.
In that game, I believed you had good reasons, but just pretended they were bad. That was because I thought (correctly) pinky was scum for putting the second random vote one someone.
Okay, we can agree to disagree on this point. I thought you said this in the past, but regrettably I was wrong. You never explicitly stated you thought that was a tell.
When you did it, I thought it was for pinky putting the second random vote on someone, but you were just being silly when describing your reasons. This time, I thought that tezz was going for an easy lynch target, because his reasons were far less ridiculous than "because of a hat."
Let's just look at the logic of this. If you did something in the past, it's likely you will do that in the future. Do you agree or disagree? This statement is logically fine, it's just that I was wrong about the initial statement.
This was logic you used in Seance mafia. And, let's not forget, it was correct. At least, I think you used it, or I used it and you said you agreed with it. One of those two. Oh, by the way, than linguistic tool is called Dogmatism. And I didn't use it, what I meant was that it was logic you had used in the past, and should therefore recognize this time. And if you call this a scummy backtrack, I'm going to slap you through the computer screen because it's the exact same thing I said before, just phrased differently.
Fixed.
Huh? The last game I replaced out of started a year ago...
Yes, I was getting that pressure of all those 0 people voting me off when I posted that :rolleyes:.
What? I took pressure off whom?
Yes, I knew it was a reference to seance mafia. As did Tezzeret12. Therefore, for him to vote for you and declare that vote to be legit made no sense from a town point of view since you were town in that game.
I voted #2 because the reasoning was stronger. I presented them in chronological order, not by strength of reasoning. Draco was for being the second vote on somebody in the RVS.
That was the part I missed. By saying your vote was legit, it made me oblivious to the sarcasm that was intended.
Still too early. Ask again after everybody's posted some more.
And that is why you don't call random votes legit. Next time, perhaps include a smiley face to show you are joking? If I get lynched over this, I'm going to be seriously ticked off.
Just so I understand, the current wagon on me is based off of:
Anything I missed in that list?
It's not unheard of, and barely even rare, for a townie to vote his or herself in the random phase. Regardless, he gains very little from this as scum, so I would say it is unlikely to a strong indicator of his alignment.
Putting the second "random" vote on a person is typically a pretty good scumtell. You should know this. Besides, if somebody used logic similar to your's, shouldn't that be a weak town tell rather than a null tell?
Tezz/Mu scumteam possible?
Claiming scum in an early post is usually done by both alignments (town more than scum) to start discussion, so it's a null tell at worst.
It's late, so I'll answer Mu's question tomorrow.
Mu, is this a serious post?
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you scum #1.
And scum #2. You know fully well that this is his town game. Or, at the very least, not indicative of his scum game. There is little question in my mind, you are scum this game.
Vote: tezzeret12
1. I've played quite a few games.
2. No mentor, thank you.
3. No idea, I haven't thought about it much.
Yes, I know there is no guarantee that was when it happened. But just watching it, you see the person run after him and then a metal bar makes contact with their head and they fall to the ground. I'd say it's pretty likely that was the cause of the broken skull.
EDIT: It appears it wasn't the first hit I was thinking of. But one of the hits before they hit the ground was a pretty hard smack across the forehead, that would be what I would guess fractured her skull.
I mean people shouldn't point to that as evidence of how much excessive force he used. A lot of people said they thought he was defending himself until he continued hitting them when they were on the ground. If the skull fracture occurred before they were on the ground, then those people shouldn't use it to say he used excessive force.
The fractured skull likely happened with the first hit, where the person is running at him and he whacks her in the head. Most people seem to agree that he was fine with hitting him before they were on the ground, so the fractured skull really shouldn't be counted against him since it was the first hit he made. Of course, if he really was hitting them on the head once they were on the ground, it's a different situation.
Yes, I never stopped them in that 3 hour time. After that, there was the DesCoures modkill, and I made the decision to allow them to nighttalk. Between the 3 hour period and the night after the modkill, there was no communication.
Canada was scum just because in the show he was portrayed as getting quite upset at being ignored, so I thought it might make sense for him to want revenge.
Mafia's vote was Gigas, Mason's was Gigas1.
Yes, in hindsight I agree. That role was leftover from when the game was in earlier stages and put limits on the number of votes/unvotes allowed in a day, so FOS was the natural replacement. It should have been removed when that restriction was.
Dagger was great. He helped a lot with designing this and helping to get it FTQ'd, then helped with the modkill decision and a few other things throughout the game.
Yes, it was. I had to go back and check the signup thread, but I knew it was in the PCQ submission.
Believe me, that decision was not made lightly. My basic thought process was that it would either destroy any chances at the scum winning if I didn't give them talk, or give them a large advantage if I gave them talk. I thought that it would be less unbalancing to allow them to talk.
That conversation took place in the span of 3 hours, during which I was not available. If I had been there to receive the first message, I would have responded to it to let them know they couldn't talk. By the time I responded, they had already stopped.
Deathjoey was just a weird serial killer, pretty much. I'll post the full set up tomorrow, unless someone in the spectator group wants to beat me to it.