guys I'm at a wedding way out in the wops, not sure if my post actually posted first time since page won't reload. Ppobably won't be able to post til monday.
You have to appreciate my skepticism, however, when I point out your meta tell and you say "oh wait guys I didn't tell you this but I decided to play this game totally differently than I play normally and totally made this decision before you pointed this out."
The simpler explanation is that this is a ret-con. Which makes sense coming from scum.
Well, I'm not going to accept that, even if it is logical.
It IS what happened, and I'm going to keep reading through the thread, and posting my analyses.
This feels disingenuous. There was nothing to suggest you were playing the game "wrong" as town or that you would feel the need to play a different way, so the implication that you chose to play this game differently than you have in the past doesn't make sense.
It makes sense when you consider that I've purposely chosen to make this the only game I play in so that I'll be able to actually pay attention and try my hand at analysis rather than just skimming all the posts that don't mention me, or aren't from that one guy I want lynched, which is my usual approach.
You can't please all the people all of the time. Every time I ever do an analysis post, it is scrutinized beyond belief because whenever you are putting 1000 bucks on the table, people are going to be judging whether the bills are fake.
To say that you'll NEVER do an analysis again is either hyperbole or defeatist attitude. Which one is it?
Hyperbole. To make an only vaguely unrelated explanation: If someone punches you in the face whenever you say "pancakes", then even if you only deserved it that one time, it's going to dissuade you from saying "pancakes", even when you legitimately have a reason to, isn't it. It's basically me rolling my eyes at Xyre for yelling scum whenever I try and post analysis.
I'm trying a different style which requires a more detailed approach, because this is the first time I've purposely decided to focus my attentions on being in only one game, and trying to play differently since I have more time to focus on the one game.
So what was the point of the reread, if all it accomplished was to restate your previous opinion and reach a few other trivial conclusions? Because it seems to me your true ambition was to impress us with your research skills - which you do often as scum.
And you yourself know I use this argument on you all the time; the fact that you're lashing out at it now also interests me.
It's more like... If you hold it against me every time I make an analysis post... I'm just not going to even try and analyse anymore, as town or scum.
That being said, I did completely forget that I have been known to do that when I am mafia, so perhaps I chose the wrong game to start trying to "play" the game.
And as far as the point of my re-read, if you have been reading, you'll know that I've only analysed the first 100 posts so far, purposely only choosing posts regarding the Axel and Shark wagons. And the result has so far been mild suspicion of Kosakosa and Vitek, and confirmation of my suspicions about Iso.
The further I get into my analysis, the more detail I'll be able to provide. While my focus is going to be on Axelrod and Shark's wagons, I will of course also be keeping an eye out for further evidence against Iso, who is my number one scumspect.
1) Reading those two posts together. He suggests he'll find a scum from his reread, and he pulls one out, but it's Iso, whom everyone has pointed to.
I think the best way to phrase it is that it's a self-fulfilling prophecy of usefulness - he "found" Iso to validate his scumhunting approach.
Furthermore, I don't see a townie writing the line
The phrase "self-consciousness" is thrown about more than it deserves, but it's the best way I can characterize the bit after the ellipsis. It feels forced to me.
Which leads into
2) WoD has a very consistent mafia/not-mafia meta. As mafia, he does what he does in these two posts - makes promises of big posts (often accompanied by apologies for other obligations) and then delivers big posts. He doesn't do posts like this usually as town/SK - his posts are short and snappy, and he's more fierce in voice and approach.
Why does he do this? Because the big posts are visually impressive and give the impression that he's really giving some thought to what he's posting, when indeed WoD's big posts make minor revelations and repackage conventional wisdom as Big Conclusions.
@WoD: your analysis is very good. One point I think was left off. You say KosaKosa should be voting me by then but isn't. Only post mentioning KosaKosa is focused on axel and not me.
That's also true - that was a mistake also.
My summary should say that Kosakosa should be voting for AXEL but isn't, at that point.
Quote from Ecophagy »
I'm still working on my own re-read, but WoD: that spoiler is almost entirely summary. The only actual analysis is that two players aren't voting Axel when they perhaps should be, but I don't see any justification for the other reads you make.
In fact, the only things you mention that could be telling of alignment (Vitek and KosaKosa not voting) do not induce you to produce a read, you just state their existence.
Yuck.
First of all, despite my years of experience, I've never really been much of an analyst, I'm sure you'll agree I'm more of a gut player. So in this game, I'm trying to be less useless in the early game than I generally am, especially since it's the only game I'm in.
As such, to address your criticisms, I'm not all the way through my read, and that is only the first hundred or so posts, but I thought it would be self explanatory when I said that they "should be voting, but aren't" that it looks bad and fence-sit-y. So, yes, I have a scum read from these two players, at that point in the game.
And I did qualify my reads on Caex, DC, and Arn - their posts looked very natural, and did all appear to come from townie mindsets, to me, hence "strongly town".
So, your statement that there are few to no reads in my post isn't accurate at all.
In just the first 100 posts, I've got one definite scum read in Iso, and two lesser reads in Kosa and Vitek. And I'm only 100 posts in.
Wheee.
I'll be reading through and providing commentary on how the wagons evolve for the rest of the week when I have time between calls.
Hmm. On further reading, I see that Iso's "why can't you take this post as a joke" was not referring to another part of Shark's post, but a completely separate post by Kosakosa. I also screwed up some formatting. Apologies for both.
Vitek agrees with arnnaria re: the forced nature of Axel’s townfishingflavourpost. Does not vote… Suspicious.
Caex explains his stance on SF, Pretty clear and concise reasoning for his vote, reads honest and townie to me.
Iso questions Caex on the fact that if he took one part of Shark’s post as a joke, why didn’t he take all of it as so?
Because a post that contains a joke can clearly never contain anything serious, like, evar.
Kosakosa once more points aggression in Axel’s direction, but still with no vote.
Descoures votes for Shark based on how self-conscious his justification of the original post was. Completely reasonable.
To summarize: Iso is still very scummy and disingenuous, Kosakosa and Vitek should be voting for Shark but neither are at this stage, and Arn, DC and Caex seem pretty strongly town.
So, I'm going to look at the two major wagons (Axel and Shark) and analyse reactions from each player. Not too sure how long this'll take, as I'll be doing it between calls at work, but hopefully it's still relevant by the time I'm done, and will have some good insights... and possibly even find a scum or two.
Like I pointed out Shark for calling for a votecount, I felt it was necessary to point it out as well here. Does it bug me that you omitted over a dozen posts? Yes. Do I have the time to scour and backtrack everything Iso has ever said to determine if there was a bias in the posts you responded to? No.
I was putting it on the table for anyone who didn't realize what you did. Maybe I should have created a "neutral" category to put this in. I'm just used to people only responding to certain things and scenarios while ignoring the rest as a scum move. So, take that as you will.
And if my still voting for you disturbs you that much, maybe you should stop worrying about my vote and ask why you are being voted by the rest of the people who are voting for you. I am not the "group leader" here.
You're using a bit of loaded language in the last couple of posts. "bonkers" ... "disturbs"... I don't think that you meant it to throw dirt on Axel and paint him as a jumpy overreacter, but bear it in mind that certain language looks kinda prejudicial.
-------------
I'm still happy with my vote on Iso, because the way he's been pushing the Axel case, and refusing to provide his reasoning is super scummy.
It IS what happened, and I'm going to keep reading through the thread, and posting my analyses.
To summarize: Pancakes.
That being said, I did completely forget that I have been known to do that when I am mafia, so perhaps I chose the wrong game to start trying to "play" the game.
And as far as the point of my re-read, if you have been reading, you'll know that I've only analysed the first 100 posts so far, purposely only choosing posts regarding the Axel and Shark wagons. And the result has so far been mild suspicion of Kosakosa and Vitek, and confirmation of my suspicions about Iso.
The further I get into my analysis, the more detail I'll be able to provide. While my focus is going to be on Axelrod and Shark's wagons, I will of course also be keeping an eye out for further evidence against Iso, who is my number one scumspect.
I didn't FIND Iso with my post at all.
Are you even reading the game?
Pfft. Good luck with that.
My summary should say that Kosakosa should be voting for AXEL but isn't, at that point.
First of all, despite my years of experience, I've never really been much of an analyst, I'm sure you'll agree I'm more of a gut player. So in this game, I'm trying to be less useless in the early game than I generally am, especially since it's the only game I'm in.
As such, to address your criticisms, I'm not all the way through my read, and that is only the first hundred or so posts, but I thought it would be self explanatory when I said that they "should be voting, but aren't" that it looks bad and fence-sit-y. So, yes, I have a scum read from these two players, at that point in the game.
And I did qualify my reads on Caex, DC, and Arn - their posts looked very natural, and did all appear to come from townie mindsets, to me, hence "strongly town".
So, your statement that there are few to no reads in my post isn't accurate at all.
In just the first 100 posts, I've got one definite scum read in Iso, and two lesser reads in Kosa and Vitek. And I'm only 100 posts in.
Wheee.
I'll be reading through and providing commentary on how the wagons evolve for the rest of the week when I have time between calls.
I think partitions of 100 posts is about right
Ced expresses interest in seeing Shark respond to the claims against him, while also questioning Eco's vote.
Arnnaria jumps on Axelrod for his admittedly over-the-top roleplaying/fishing for townresponse posts.
Caex barns ced on wanting to hear from Shark.
about his flavour indignation.
[url=http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=9153505&postcount=60]Caex probes Shark again, seems happy with his previous response.
Tanarin votes for Xyre here (meant to vote Axel), for the last two lines of his flavourfishplan.
Iso’s famous “Mass Lock Colour claim” post. What I didn’t notice the first time I read it, is that despite providing reason to do so, he doesn’t vote for Caex here, instead returning my random vote. Curious. (that doesn’t really have a lot of relevance to shark or axel, but I just found it interesting, and another good point against Iso.)
Vitek agrees with arnnaria re: the forced nature of Axel’s townfishingflavourpost. Does not vote… Suspicious.
Caex explains his stance on SF, Pretty clear and concise reasoning for his vote, reads honest and townie to me.
Iso questions Caex on the fact that if he took one part of Shark’s post as a joke, why didn’t he take all of it as so?
Because a post that contains a joke can clearly never contain anything serious, like, evar.
Kosakosa once more points aggression in Axel’s direction, but still with no vote.
Descoures votes for Shark based on how self-conscious his justification of the original post was. Completely reasonable.
-------------
I'm still happy with my vote on Iso, because the way he's been pushing the Axel case, and refusing to provide his reasoning is super scummy.