Mini 880 - Mini Quick and Dirty - Game Over

[Raskol]

VP, do you think that Papa Zito's SRS BSNS comment was intended to imply that he had a case?

If so, why?

[Sando]

@Sando (end of 217): This will be the main reason for my vote at the end of this post (I realize it's a long one). You're essentially asking for people that SC has as pro-town. This is much much worse than asking for scumspects. If there's a wagon on somebody that SC doesn't mind seeing lynched, you'll see that he's not pro-town enough in SC's eyes. Scum only benefit from that type of information.

Have you been reading the thread at all? Serial has stated many times, in this game and others that his D1 preferred gameplan is to eliminate people as suspects and then lynch pretty much anyone other than this. The reason I questioned him on his pro-town views is that because of his gameplan, he's forced to defend his pro-town views while not really defending his scum views.

If I asked him why he's voting someone, he can and will say 'well I don't find them town, and I've said I'm happy to lynch anyone I don't think is obviously town'. That doesn't provide me with any information. If I ask 'why don't you want to lynch this person' he's forced to explain what about that person he finds pro-town.

I'm forcing him to defend his position and provide opinions, and then questioning those opinions. This would seem pretty obvious given that he has stated it himself, you're stretching pretty hard to make a case. Is there a reason you don't want me to actually try and get information from someone in the game?

And yes, Serial is a fan of early claims. Early mass-claims I haven't seen from him so much, and I personally am generally against them.

I'm V/LA for 48 hours from nowish.

[VP Baltar]

Out of curiosity, what's the PZscum thought process to that bit of play? What was he trying to achieve?

It's not so much that he would have had scum motivation to be voting you in the first place, it is that he attacked me for ignoring him when I called him out on his fluff posts. He alleged that he was being serious and I was scummy because I was ignoring him. I then asked him for his case on you, since he claimed it was serious. He is now saying he didn't have one.

So, how do you think that makes him look after he tried to sling mud at me for (validly) attacking him? He was actively extending the RVS and I called his bluff, after which he tried to slink away and say it was all a joke because he never actually had a case in the first place.

Catching up with the rest once my computer restarts.

[VP Baltar]

VP, do you think that Papa Zito's SRS BSNS comment was intended to imply that he had a case?

If so, why?

Considering I specifically said he was pushing crap and that was his response, yes I am going to read it as him saying he had some actual reason. Keep in mind that he also said he couldn't vote for me (who he found scummy) because he already had his vote on the serious serial wagon.

Funny spellings don't get you a free pass for backtracking in my book.

[BigBear]

I am checking right now to see if any prods are in order.
-Also, ekiM has requested replacement due inability to keep up. I am looking for one right now based on a player list that Troll gave me. If that does not work out, I have two other back ups. Albert B Rampage, and Cateraction.

Official Vote Count

SerialClergyman (1) - Papa Zito
ekiM (3) - Raskol, ODDin, AGar
AGar (2) - Ojanen, ekiM
Amished (1) - Sando
Sando (3) - Scien, Amished, Zorblag
Papa Zito (1) - VP Balter
Oddin (1) - SerialCleargyman

Not Voting:

12 alive, 7 to lynch
6.5 days left

[AGar]

Then he comes back and accuses me of playing the newbie card. Now it would be one thing if I said something like "I don't get how this works" and multiple people had called me out on that. Instead, I said "I'm out of my league" and the only other person to mention this was Zorblag. This really perked me up.

ekiM showed you say "I really feel like ekiM is reaching on Scien here, but I'm not sure. I'm way out of my league in this game " and then you unvoted your RVS vote because there was no real reason to suspect PZ.
Which is pretty strongly saying that you feel something is suspicious, but are not sure because supposedly being not in others' league, which is a reference to lack of proficiency and seemed a potentially deliberate fence-sit, and had no meaningful difference to playing the newbie card in this context.
Also, what does few vs. multiple people calling you out have to do with anything?
I really don't get this coupled with the OMGUS vote.

I don't follow this at all - it's completely incoherent. If clarified, I might be able to respond to it, but right now, it's all garbled.

I wish I could say I had no failings in my confidence, but he's gone rather inactive, so I can't get a better read of him. However, I feel it fulfills it's purpose right now.

And what is that purpose

Letting people know where I stand on issues, possibly pushing a read out of a player, or other players. Generating discussion as well.

Under VP's argument, I couldn't really assume a meta for either of them as scum. However, I know of several games where PZ was scum, and I could easily read them over, no? That seems to be something you somewhat overlooked, VP.

Reading over or having read over games were not in his original statement. I'm not going to assume he has simply because that is something he COULD do. Incomplete meta is incomplete meta and could simply be scum excusing their partner's behavior without explanation. /quote]

Ok, fair enough.

@AGar: {Why I want opinions out right away} I feel it breeds a better D1 atmosphere to actually look for people who aren't operating on the towns agenda, and get people to talk about something. Low activity games hurt the town. If I get everyone to talk about something, then it's helpful to my faction.

Duly noted.

---

I'm going to wait until ekiM's replacement before really doing much more, because that's where my first suspicion lies.

[VP Baltar]

SC and AGar, what are your thoughts on Sando please.

[Scien]

I can haz PapaZ views on the game?

So far all we have is your pressure vote and defense of it. I think that's it.

[BigBear]

charlatan replaces ekiM, effective immediately.

[SerialClergyman]

VP - Meh on your PZ case. If he was serious about his attack on you I imagine he would have said he was voting me for my opinion on claiming and then his attack on you would have stood. The fact he admitted even in the face of your criticism that his attack was just a bandwagon says he's unlikely to be scum to me. I appreciate that acting as it it's serious and then turning up days later saying it absolutely wasn't isn't cool, but I don't think it's likely to come from scum.

As for Sando - he has an abrasive argument style at times that I think is on display at the moment. He's an intelligent player who isn't likely to totally lose his marbles as scum. His last post is an excellent example of what I mean - it seemed he was just arguing for the sake of it, or maybe being scummy while defending a scummy playstyle, but when Amished attacked him for pushing for town reads from me he gave a perfectly logical dissertation of why he was doing it and the benefit it would give town. Same earlier when pointing out my stance on Zorblag meant although I wasn't saying directly he was town, I was implying I wouldn't want him lynched. These are both solid ways of approaching finding out my alignment.

In short, look past the words (and his words will generally do their best to catch your eye ) and look at the position and the scumhunting, I think that's the key to finding sando's alignment.

As it stands, I'm thinking town at the moment.

[VP Baltar]

In short, look past the words (and his words will generally do their best to catch your eye ) and look at the position and the scumhunting, I think that's the key to finding sando's alignment.

My argument isn't with his tone (though he is overreacting most of the time it seems). My argument is the fact that COMPLETELY FABRICATED an argument against Amished and then when this was pointed out he would not simply admit he was wrong, but rather concocted a hairbrain theory that saying 'I find XXX scummy' is the equivalent of giving a listing of every player.

Additionally, he attacked Amished for ignoring posts while ignoring me saying that I would be completely ignoring PZ until he gave actual content. I've pointed this out and asked him why, and yet there has been no response.

Look past the words at all of his scummy actions.

[SerialClergyman]

I think this comes down to differences in how we scumhunt. I don't see the first bit as scummy because I don't understand why he'd do it. There's no reason to invent a case this early. All scum have to do is hang around pointing out mild 'tells' until the most outspoken person gets lynched. It just doesn't read as scum play to get all incensed about somethign made up. He did admit that he was wrong, btw, although he did evolve the argument, that's true.

I did too. Amished saying he ignored jokes around the time he didn't notice there was a vote count on page and he didn't notice that he was

re

joining my wagon not joining it was scummy. You saying you were 'ignoring' PZ's posts till he came up with content was an entirely different point, it was about forcing PZ to post content, not about genuinely ignoring anything.

Still not seeing it.

[VP Baltar]

*shakes fist*

you know you're a very frustrating Day 1 player SC because you never really want to lynch anyone until deadline. You're a regular debbie downer.

[SerialClergyman]

I'll lynch amished or odddin!

And... GO!

[SerialClergyman]

Also, as an aside, I massively approve of that post. Made me laugh, made me cry - made me

feel

...

[SerialClergyman]

Err sorry to triple post but the above wasn't sarcasm... I laughed on the bus so loudly the person sitting next to me stared at me till I moved seats.

[VP Baltar]

lol, well that's a consolation prize for me anyhow.

What is the cliffnotes case on Amished, cause I'm not feeling that one at all at the moment?

ODDin I might be able to get on board with via some persuading.

[SerialClergyman]

Hmm, a case is goign to be a stretch, but I'll try to give you more than the main reason which is gut.

Edgy voting at start,

Changed reasoning for pushign SC wagon from 'because it was there' to pushing it because he thoguth I was scum.

Pushed SC wagon when he thought PZ was leading it, when PZ pulled out he left, ignoring the 'tell' he 'found' when he thought PZ was leading it.

Odd disconnect between keeping quiet about said 'tell' and then in the reveal saying it was SC's stance on claims, which was hardly worth keeping quiet about, given it was so obvious.

That wasn't worded well, but I'll se if I can demonstrate what i mean:

I believe that PZ is entirely serious; and the reason for my vote is both for bandwagon purposes and because

I'm pretty sure I see where PZ is going with his accusation; and it's a good reason.

I hesitate to fulling state why SC is scummy; to not give PZ an out if his accusations are bogus but it's a good place to start.

Oh, I'm eagerly awaiting his case as well. I'm pretty sure I found out what he was looking at, but not going to jump the gun.

Then when PZ said he wasn't serious he summarises thusly, in a post that barely mentions me:

My vote on SC was initially due to wanting a bandwagon (and forgetting the VC on the page); and

I thought due to his post on page 3 that he was going to set up a push for a cop claim early on and try to dismiss his action as not scummy because he brought it up D1

.

So not only did he not continue with his own thoughts once PZ wasn't leading the charge, he also barely mentioned what it even was. And the tell he mentioned (my stance on claims) was so patently obvious I don't know why he felt the need to keep secret about it in the first place, and the main thing he found scummy about it was that in a couple of days I MIGHT use it as a platform to do somethign scummy THEN. Remember this was a tell he said was a 'good reason' to be pushign a case.

Then he uses a similar 'future' argument to PZ (he might have used his bogus wagon to accuse people on it of wagoning without reason) which is a pretty rubbish statement all around.

Then finally he attacks sando, who as we've discussed I think looks scummier than he is, and is a bit of a whipping boy at the moment.

Voteworthy?

[Ojanen]

I don't follow this at all - it's completely incoherent. If clarified, I might be able to respond to it, but right now, it's all garbled.

I'm slightly ESL impaired, apparently this was one of those moments. I'll try again.
Your reason for voting ekiM was this:

Then he comes back and accuses me of playing the newbie card. Now it would be one thing if I said something like "I don't get how this works" and multiple people had called me out on that. Instead, I said "I'm out of my league" and the only other person to mention this was Zorblag. This really perked me up.

Mike accused you of this:

I really feel like ekiM is reaching on Scien here, but I'm not sure. I'm way out of my league in this game Razz

Oh also, since we've left RVS and I have no reason to really suspect Papa Zito right now:

Unvote

Do not like. Don't try and play the newbie card in this game.

I do not understand your thought process. There is no meaningful difference in playing a lack of proficiency card or playing a lack of experience card. I do not understand what is the relevance of multiple people calling or not calling you out. I also felt your deliberate unvote and rhetoric of really thinking someone is scummy but excusing yourself from taking a firm stance was somewhat scummy.

The rest of your reasons for voting Mike were exactly the same ones you felt were not worthy of a vote rather than a fence-sit earlier - reaching on Scien. This isolates the reason for your vote completely to a reaction for Mike suspecting you.
I want you to explain the thought process to me.

WRT AGar---Searching through his games, I don't think the OMGUS vote can be regarded as a scum tell for him. He votes people who are voting him all the time as town---and never has done so, as far as I can find, as scum. I'll take another look at the specific context behind and reasoning for this vote, but I don't think the OMGUS portion of it means anything.

I'l take a look and consider this tomorrow.
---

I meant that I've never played nor read a game of Sando/AGar/ODDin. I've read one or two of the rest of you that I haven't played with; or played with them. I like to get a feel for how active they are, primarily, and look for a super gambit or something. If they're just solid, that's fine too and I like reading the games.

How on earth does this work out with you thinking meta is generally not an effective usage of time and often pretty worthless?

[charlatan]

Evening, folks.

I'm happy to have replaced in here; several players I'd hoped to play with again are here. Seems like the ball is already rolling, and it's late, so I'll probably get all caught up and in the mix tomorrow.

[Scien]

Who are you?

(heh)

[Papa Zito]

Think I'm hitting burnout. Wee.

Well, see, keep in mind that you attacked me for "ignoring" you and all you were bringing to the game.

I'd attack anyone for ignoring another player. It's plain antitown.

Turns out, I was correct in the first place that your "SRS BSNS" wasn't very serious.

False.

And yet you said you'd be happy to switch your vote to me if you weren't already on the very serious Serial wagon. Now you are trying to downplay it as just a bandwagon vote.

Way to spin. That's not what I said at all. SC tinged my radar with his gameplay shenanigans, so I picked him as my Day 1 bandwagon. Getting the town moving and starting up pressure on someone is indeed SRS BSNS.

My problem is I had an unexpected V/LA and wasn't able to keep the wagon going like I needed to. Feel free to blast me for that if you want.


Sidenote: VP's playing really tight here for some reason.

The attention on this is sigh, but it's gotten some interesting results.

So yes, PZ, you pretty much lied - at any rate, you've created a very wrong impression.

Are you sure I'm the one that created that impression? I'd love to hear how.

[Papa Zito]

I can haz PapaZ views on the game?

You can haz.

I'm not feeling this game at the moment honestly. But here's what I've got so far:

1. AGar - Townish so far. I feel like I can read AGar at this point in my career... we'll see if that's true.
2. Amished - He's seen right through VP's crap, and I like a lot of the other stuff he's posting too.
3. charlatan ekiM - No issues here. Let's see what charlatan does.
4. ODDin - I don't like how ODDin quietly agreed with VP but didn't move his random vote on ekiM to a player that he apparently agreed as scummy. To me he's waiting to see if a bandwagon materializes.
5. Ojanen - Nothing yet. Need moar.
6. Papa Zito - zzzzz
7. Raskol - Townie vibe from this quarter
8. Sando - Scummy. I haven't seen any scumhunting here.
9. Scien - Ditto ODDin question here. Other than that no issues.
10. SerialClergyman - People are attacking SC over playstyle nonsense and it's getting old. SC is townish at the moment.
11. VP Baltar - His twisting of what I said is bad, and like I said above he's not playing the way I'm used to, but his other content is good, so I'm conflicted here. I like his Sando attacks in particular.
12. Zorblag - I never can read Troll. Stay tuned.

unvote: SerialClergyman
vote: ODDin

[VP Baltar]

Sidenote: VP's playing really tight here for some reason.

I'm not sure what "playing really tight" means. Can you explain what that means.

As far as your SC wagon, I'm not attacking you for V/LA. I fully acknowledge that happens. My problem is that you were making it out to be an actual serious wagon. I still don't even understand what you were voting him for. "gameplay shennanigans" is wonderfully vague.

Further, you acted like I was missing out on something by ignoring your points up to that point, and in reality I still don't see what I was missing. Attacking me over illegitimate reasons rings as scummy to me.

[Zorblag]

Troll gives warm welcome to Charlatan! Troll looks forward to hearing what you have to say about what has happened thus far.

@SerialClergyman, do you think that Amished not noticing the vote count was intentional?

-Zorblag R`Lyeh