Newbie 1072 - Game Over!

[Forseti]

Aight, first up, excuse the late arrival.

I'd love to say it was because I'm fashionable, but to tell the truth I was just hella busy yesterday, so, hey everyone.

This would be my first MS game, in case anyone asks, however, I have played a hell of a lot on other sites, I'm sure the more experienced crowd understand what that means, 3 day phases instead of 3 weeks.

Anyway, since you guys seem to have got right down to it...

I personally didn't think much of gxw's multi-vote post itself, because I've done something like that as a joke.

I WAS intrigued by the fact that he says he aimed to use it to reaction-fish though. I've never seen anyone do something like that as anything more than a joke, personally. Curious to know how others see that, because I've always treated RVS as a fluid phase that generally get ended by accident, and in general have never been fond of seeing it forced to an end artificially, particularly not at a point where very few others had checked in at all.

I guess that depends on how much value should be placed on looking back at RVS at a later stage once there's been a couple of flips and there's a lot more open info, I think there is a certain amount of mileage there and it may be lost later on because of this.

Regarding Twisted, you know, maybe it's just because of the style of play I'm used to, and the fact that most of my games have topped 20 players, but my general reaction when I see someone make a case as to why something is scummy and then delay a vote (as in your case, dropping the HoS instead) is generally questionable. I'm all for the not devaluing a vote (Personally, I don't think gxw did this, if he was changing his vote every post for a string of posts, that's devaluing, what he did was a player run-down and land on the last name of the list, as set out by the mod in the pre-game, I'm personally operating on the policy that 8 outta 9 of those votes may as well just have never happened), but I also think that it devalues a vote just as much to leave it lying fallow when you think you have a case to place it down.

I don't yet consider this voteworthy myself, ironically, it's an early observation, and I'm also somewhat hesitant to put a guy at L-2 lightly at this point.

And being Scottish (though ex-pat, I'm on GMT -5 these days if we're trading timezones) it's possible that you being English is colouring my judgment on you anyway. *grin*

Anywhos, that's some opening thoughts on those two, more to come as more comes to me.

[Forseti]

Dazzy: I don't particularly care about the length of RVS, per se. My issue with gxw's "trap" is much as you described in your response what King said. The closure felt premature, and it feels like that premature snap cost us an opportunity.

Charlie: Not enough to take it to L-2 at that stage, no. Counter question to you. Would YOU have placed that vote if I had and taken it to L-1? Or were you trying to make a point?

[Forseti]

On another note, since I saw others give their time zones, I dont know what my -# xxx is, but I live in New Jersey so I have an EST time.

Same as me, then, -5. I'm now in NJ myself.

Other than that, I wish to wait on Charlie posting again before adding comments on the subject.

[Forseti]

I actually do not like this Charlie wagon, not to the point of someone being supposedly willing to hammer him certainly.

Here's why.

How do you know that the two scummers haven't yet voted and could hammer me before you retract your vote? How can you therefore have this confidence you claim you have, unless you know who the scummers are and who will therefore vote and hammer?

Taken from the post in which TS voted Charlie.

How does this even make sense as part of the reason for Charlie's vote on you being scummy in a 2 scum game? If they're both NOT on your wagon... OBVIOUSLY only town WOULD be on your wagon, including Charlie, no?

Not to mention, of course, that a double-scum quickhammer would be highly idiotic.

Combined with your post #75, which to be honest stinks far more of the rashness Charlie's been accused of than anything he's actually done... REALLY not liking your case here.

The question dodging on Charlie's part after being asked straight out the meaning of some his plays... that I can see as a reason to vote. You, however, barely mentioned that in your case, throwing it in like an afterthought, and even though you were questioning Charlie PRIOR to his vote on you, you only got hyped up about voting him AFTER he voted you, something about this stinks of veiled OMGUS and not wanting to be the biggest wagon on the block, since it put him at L-2 right along with you.

Also, KingTwelveSixteen... you talked about Charlie's "SEEMING contradictions" (your words) before you placed your vote, yet you've never expanded on this. What are Charlie's contradictions, in your own words please.

Oh, and also...

Vote: Dazzy

Wiith Charlie at L-2, he basically threw up a post (#60) that read to ME like he wanted to throw more weight at the pressure on Charlie (who at this time was L-2) without ACTUALLY voting or even referencing the possiblity of voting, not to mention the way he backed up part of it by referencing how the SE players saw things the way he did. They both voted for Charlie, Dazzy did not, mixing a little buddying in there along with trying to push a Charlie lynch along while maintaining the ability to say he didn't vote for the guy were he to flip town.

On top of that, even with both SE players in the game on the lynch, I'm AMAZED how fast a wagon built up on the game IC, wonder how often newbie-scum gets scared of the IC and looks for an opportunity to get rid of him around here?

[Forseti]

KingTwelveSixteen: What I meant by the hammering thing was that gxw is supposedly willing to drop the hammer at this stage, which strikes me as utterly ludicrous this early.

Also, I would argue he set out his vote on TS with a certain amount of caution. Using your vote on your lead suspect =/= scummy in and of itself, and given the nature of the wagon, and given the context of his interaction with me in the leadup to it, making it perfectly obvious and plain that it's going to L-2 at that point seemed like a fairly logical thing to do.

Would you say YOU were showing recklessness or caution by putting Charlie to L-1 and shouting loudly that it was, in fact, L-1? I see little difference in the scenarios, other than the vote count. Especially not since you've been also stating your caution about doing certain things because of your past game experience. Either he made one reckless move, in which case you've been as reckless, if not more so, or what you did wasn't all that reckless, and if yours wasn't, his CERTAINLY wasn't given that TS was further away from a lynch than Charlie is.

Ghostlin: I didn't think that his questions were set out with the purposeful intent of role-fishing when I first saw them, if anything I think they were badly chosen reaction-bait. I can understand why it might be interpreted as they have been, and I could understand a couple of the votes on him a hell of a lot more if that was the platform those votes were standing on, but they aren't, and I don't interpret a lot of the other stated reasons for voting Charlie right now standing up under scrutiny.

I also don't see anything with pure role-fishing intentions being done that blatantly.

[Forseti]

Before I start this... wall-o-quotes ahead, you have been warned.

He voted soley due to gut, and he thought someone might try to hammer TS. That "He thought that" part is important. That seems fairly reckless if he believed it might happen. I however, do not think that will happen. It would be pretty stupid for anyone to purpousefully quicklynch day 1, in my opinion, so I loudly said he was at L-1 so nobody would accidentally kill him. Thus, from our own points of view, I was acting cautious(ish) and he was acting reckless.

Disagree. I don’t see the recklessness in pointing out exactly where the lead wagon at the stands after placing your vote on it. Hell, maybe he did it in case someone got their personal vote count wrong and dictated their actions based on that? *looks right at you*

Also, nearly every newbie game I’ve read here, there’s always SOMEONE who brings up the prospect of quick lynching, why it’s bad, why people should be careful when a wagon gets close to finishing off… all the permutations come up time and again. It’s game theory, and unless someone is posting game theory all the time to distract from the fact that they aren’t actually doing anything else, that’s pretty null.

So, there you go, this so-called disparity between his stated play style and his actions doesn’t match up for me.

As an aside, Charlie was at L-3 when I made my post. Only Ghostlin and Mute had voted on him at that point.

My apologies, misread of the thread on my part.

As to the rest of your answer… Calling it how I saw it. I will admit that referring to the SEs there doesn’t feel as buddyish because they were the only two votes on Charlie at that point. HOWEVER, I still don’t like the rest of it. Arguably, if he was at L-3 at that point instead of L-2, you had more leeway to vote there than not?

Put it this way, I feel less uncomfortable about your presence than I did before your last post, but if Charlie happens to flip town, I’m really going to have my eye on you.

Yep, that's a flaw of mine. We all have flaws and that's one of mine, which is why I'm glad I can't commit it as I'm not in a position to hammer.
Now let's talk about what I do better; cracking the case

Trust me mate, you don’t do that any better.

I don't care how blatantly it was. That is irrelevant.

Rolefishing is a very scummy thing to do, and Charlie has failed to justify this

Yes it is, if it’s rolefishing,
IF
RQS is fishing for reactions, not roles.

Not to mention I already said he chose poorly which questions to use, and isn't doing great at defending against that statement, which is a scummy move on his part.

However, while it's also the only part of the wagon on him I don't have a problem with, I don't think it's enough to drop a lynch on him when we're only just about to hit the 100 game posts in thread mark.

Oh, you're using his IC status to defend Charlie. Well we needn't be afraid of that.
Being IC doesn't exclude him from being mafia, and that's what he certainly looks like.

If anyone opposes a Charlie lynch purely because he is IC they they are sadly mistaken. IC is just as likely to be scum as any of us. Clearly Foresti does and he's using this argument to protect scum partner Charlie
It seems you're trying to defend Charlie a little too much here.
If Forseti and Charlie turn out to be the mafia, you guys owe me a medal

At what point did I dispute that IC status precluded him from being scum? I said that it was surprising how fast the wagon went to ready to lynch. I also wondered if in cases where the IC is town and under lynch threat, how often it was driven by newb-scum because they saw the IC as a major threat to them?

It's called a hypothetical question.

At no point have I said I'm sure Charlie's town. My point, AGAIN, is that I don't think the case on him is enough to lynch THIS SOON.

If you’re going to misrep, do a better job.

So assuming, you're townie, then one possible townie has now a higher chance of being lynched than another possible townie. So what's the problem, unless you know that one isn't townie, and therfore a a scum buddy.

At least KingTwelveSixteen got the point, which was that the vote looked hypocritical given his own stated gameplay stances. It had nothing to do with who was being wagoned and EVERYTHING to do with the reasoning for the vote.

Again. If you’re going to misrep, do a better job.

I don't care how the case was phrased.
What matters is that Charlie dodged the questions which show he is scum. Double the reason to suspect him, and now you for protecting him.

Right… tell you what. If you ever find a wagon you don’t like build up too fast in a game your playing, keep your mouth shut about it and just let it happen. Obviously, it’s far more protown to let a lynch you don’t like go through without a single objection than it is to point out why you don’t like the case.

Also, good to know you’ll push the hell out of a careless case to get a lynch, noted.

Personally, If Charlie is mafia then We're giving him a chance to wriggle free and lose out hottest lead. If he doesn't have the best defence than ever before in mafia we need to hammer him.

So, again, you want a nice quick hammer if he ain’t the Hemingway of mafia defense, on page 4, on day one. At what point did you miss how anti-town THAT sentiment is?

Oh, I know, let’s chalk it up to “a gameplay flaw”.

Foresti, your post was scummy up till now, but now it's hilariously scummy.

You vote Dazzy without even mentioning why. you seem to think 'Oh and also' explains your vote.
You're trying to get a counter-wagon going here to protect your scumbuddy charlie. This is obvious. Especially because you didn't give a reason.

Oh, never mind. I’ve figured it out now. YOU JUST DON’T READ POSTS. Apparently, you didn’t read mine, nor did you read Dazzy’s post WHERE HE REFERENCED THE REASONS FOR THE VOTE I PUT ON HIM.

Either that, or it’s the THIRD time you’ve tried to misrep me in one post.

The only obvious thing in your post is that you’ll apparently go to ANY lengths to get Charlie lynched, and the sooner the better.

strawmanning are we now?

pick the weakest part of my argument, attack that, and then ignore the rest.

strawmanning noted

Thanks for bringing this up, since on top of all the misreps, you decided to cherry pick my posts the exact same way as you just accused someone else of doing to you.

Case cracked: scum are almost definitely Charlie and Forest
We can't lynch these two fast enough

Maybe YOU can’t, since quick lynches are apparently your thing, not to mention declaring definite scum everyone who either votes for you (gxw, Charlie), or disagrees with you. (me)

Between Dazzy’s last post and your recent efforts, I’m cool with doing this.

unvote

Vote: Twistedspoon

[Forseti]

gxw: TS is L-2, Dazzy unvoted. And anyway, you're one of the votes already on him.

TS... I don't even know where to start.

Basically, you just ignored every other part of MY post to say that I FALSELY accused of you of strawmanning (oh the humanity), then, on top of all the misreps I pointed out and you ignored, you follow that up by cherry picking ONE LINE of my post, utterly out of context (and I'm still falsely accusing you of strawmanning, OH THE HUMANITY), and misrep me AGAIN.

Did you really not understand the point I was making when I said that? Because I'm seriously starting to doubt your reading comprehension skills at this point, my words thus far have been so twisted by you I could take 'em and use 'em as a corkscrew.

Seriously, wow.

Preview edit: Oh, and now you're coming with the early claims and appeals. Good for you.

[Forseti]

So, BASICALLY, all you're going to do is ignore every single valid point made against you by multiple people, and perpetuate things that are either outright falsehoods or proof that you don't actually read the thread to justify your "99% sure scumreads".

no. He just randomly voted Dazzy.
There is no case against Dazzy.

What reasons are there that Dazzy is scum?

Funny how my justification for a Dazzy vote (which apparently doesn't exist) was noticed by Dazzy, quoted by him, argued again by me, and countered again by him, and noticed by multiple other people also.

[Forseti]

@KingTwelveSixteen

I think it would be prudent to give some of the guys that haven't posted in a while to post before hammering. Im okay TS going, however, I'd like to see some comment on all of this from the likes of Ghostlin, Farmerixi and gxw (who, let's face it, has only really posted in the last couple of days to talk about how he wants to hammer people).

[Forseti]

@Ghostlin

A few things.

The speed with which the wagon built up was a major factor, for one thing. I could tie that into my off-site experience, perhaps. Where I usually play, day one wagons on scum tend to be a lot slower to build up and a lot harder to get over the finish line, so a very quick wagon with someone declaring hammer-intent on someone tends to be something that sets off alarm bells in my head.

Secondly, as I've already stated, I could see where Charlie could look like he was role-fishing... but my immediate instinct about the questions when I saw them was that they were reaction-bait, it felt to me like he was throwing hooks in the water to see if something snapped on it.

I wasn't thrilled by KingTwelveSixteen's vote, I said why, and I still disagree with his rebuttal.

Dazzy's post, any my resulting vote ended up discussed to death (Or ignored to death, pick your preference). I was satisfied with his responses to an extent, and recognised that an error in my vote-counting contributed to my read. As it is, I'm leaning town on him now, but that would switch were Charlie to be lynched and flip town.

The TS vote... I still think that was OMGUS couched in hazy reasoning as I said at the time, and not TS's first (or last) exhibiting of it, and after the recent interactions, I feel he's a far better lynch than Charlie at this point for a variety of reasons.

My read on Charlie, as it stands, is leaning town, and most of that has little to actually do with his own play as it is the way that people have reacted to him and tried to push the wagon on him over the line. As such, it's a read that's subject to change, but it would need a stronger case than currently has been put forth.

[Forseti]

[quote="KingTwelveSixteen]

...
Ghostlin:

I didn't think that his questions were set out with the purposeful intent of role-fishing when I first saw them

, if anything I think they were badly chosen reaction-bait. I can understand why it might be interpreted as they have been, and I could understand a couple of the votes on him a hell of a lot more if that was the platform those votes were standing on, but they aren't, and I don't interpret a lot of the other stated reasons for voting Charlie right now standing up under scrutiny.

I also don't see anything with pure role-fishing intentions being

done that blatantly.

*Raised eyebrow*
Also, which reasons specifically do you think don't stand up under scrutiny?

Hm, you know you never commented on that contradiction Forseti. It can't be blatant and yet unnoticable.[/quote]

I did, when I pointed out that questions were, in my opinion, fishing for reactions rather than roles, something I said inside that very quote, and have said multiple times since. I do not consider this a contradiction, I consider it a difference in interpretation between us.

I'm also going to consider that perhaps you misunderstood my phasing in my last line of that quote, because reading it again, I can see how it would be open to being misinterpreted, what I meant to say was that I did not believe that Charlie, based on the play he'd exhibited up to that point, would be as blatant as he actually was if role-fishing was his true intention. A lot of what I've seen to this poiint makes me want to credit him with more nuance to his game than that, which was why I viewed those questions the way I did, as an effort on his part to garner reactions.

Does that clear it up?

[Forseti]

EBWOP: Ugh, quote tag fail, first time I forget to preview to check tags, I mess up the freakin' tags, of course.

First line after the quote should be part of a seperate KingTwelveSixteen quote, the rest is new from me.

[Forseti]

Posting to check in just now. Had an unexpectedly busy couple of days, didn't leave much time for the game, unfortunately.

I'll be back to everything tomorrow.

[Forseti]

Really sorry guys, I had to rush out of town with the wife for a few days after my pop-in-law took sick, make sure he was okay.

He's a bit of a techno-phobe, about the most advanced electrical item he's got is a microwave, and that's under sufferance, so I couldn't get online. Noticed we got replacements, so hi and how you doin' to those folks.

Anyway, it's after 3am, I just got home about twenty minutes ago from a 5 hour drive, and I'm absolutely beat.

Sorry again, reread and catchup after I go collapse somewhere.