Raskol wrote:Alright, I've thought about it for a while, and despite all that I think circumstances require that I do things a little differently this time and post the notes without getting a story first. First, we're close to the deadline and with ronnieroo's level of activity it's possible that if I wait we wont' be able to discuss enough before closing time. Second, my connection is acting up today, I'm getting disconnected constantly and when it does this it often shuts off for hours at a time. If I don't post it now I may not be able to today. So here are the notes I have so far, condensed a bit. They cover D1, and are a good start even if more could be said.
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 36#1745036
-casts suspicion on TFGM without a vote, for the stupid noobie mistake. (putting town on the track of an easy target, yet no vote from her herself).
I put a point out there for others to consider. I said it was suspcious. I never said vote for him. I wanted to see his reaction.
-points out that voting records can and often are used to catch scum. A nice little piece of theory, hard to fault her for bringing it up, except that it shows that voting records are on her mind. It could just be someone pointing out the obvious, or it could be the comment of a scum who plans to use her clean, empty record as a defense later on. (note later comment: when asked about her feelings on the lynch, all she says is “we lynched town and that’s bad”. No comment on what the lynch could mean as far as finding scum.)
The reasons Zach was lynched had been posted by several other players already. Whiplashing vote and the fit at the end. I didn't feel as though I needed to re-state them. Well, asked that question at that time that was the only answer I could really give. I hadn't (and still haven't) pulled anything worth posting out of Zach's lynch.
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 26#1745126
Points out that mafia have to get people to follow them. Again, true enough, and it might be taken as another innocent little comment on theory, except that later on she talks about this concept so much as to seem obsessed with it, and her playstyle is exactly that of scum trying to get town to follow them to a lynch. Kinda makes you wonder why the idea is so prominent in her mind.
Well it's very true. mafia can't lynch on their own. Which is why they either lead the game, or follow everyone else.
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 89#1748189
-casts suspicion on BlueRaven without a vote for another newbie mistake (casting suspicion on another easy target, with no vote).
-another nice little bit of theory, great way to add to the discussion without helping town.
Basic theory does help town. You may've been smart enough to read the wiki, but when I started playing this game I wasn't.
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 69#1749969
-blatantly misrepresents Geekalicious in, guess what, another suspicion-post without a vote. A pattern of throwing mud and then hiding in the shadows waiting for a reaction. Guess what? This post came pretty close after Zach had voted Geekalicious. Third time ronnieroo tries to covertly push along a bandwagon after it's already been started.
-more theory, urging Geek to think for himself and warns against the possibility of following a mafia member. Empty, obvious advice, post-padding at its best (although it shows again the kind of things that are on her mind). Theory is fine and not a problem in itself as long as it's accompanied by content and genuine scumhunting, but when all you get from someone is theory and voteless mudslinging, things start to look bad.
That's generally why I put points out there. You're looking for a reaction. If you didn't want me or someone else to react, then why did you place all your notes up here?
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 13#1751413
A comment from this post is very telling, and I want to quote it directly:
ronnieroo wrote:
Leading sheep to water is ridiculously easy in a noobie game... especially when you're an IC.
This sounds like gloating. Other highlights of the post: more voteless suspicion-casting and 'helpful theory'.
How is that gloating? A. I'm not an IC here. B. I was referring to following Zach.
Overall:
-Nothing that could really help catch scum. Absolute minimum interaction, points out the obvious, votelessly points suspicion toward easy targets.
I point out obvious things, because when I was a noobie, they were the things I over looked.
-one of the suspicion-castings relied on a blatant misinterpretation of a player’s post (see above)
So you never misinterprut things?
-almost all of her posts contain something like the words "this makes me
very
suspicious of you" and yet she never votes. This is scum behavior. Moreover, when asked later why she didn't vote, she said she had never found anyone suspicious enough! If
very suspicious
doesn't cut it, ronnie, just what does it take to get you to vote?
I become suspicous of the post, and thus question the player behind it. I don't feel that ONE post nessassarly warrants a vote.
-her theory comments show that she’s extremely concerned about two things: first, influence and the idea of manipulating townies. Second, using voting records to track scum. The fact that her playstyle is consistent with a scumplayer who is trying to use exactly those things to her advantage is evidence for her being scum.
I've stated why I didn't vote at least three times now. I have no intentions of stating it again.