Mini 880 - Mini Quick and Dirty - Game Over

[Amished]

@Sando: I did not realize that you knew SC out of game/extensively in game to garner that sort of "meta-experience" with him. Probably why I didn't understand a damn thing you were trying to accomplish with that.

@SC: How much do you know of Sando?

[Papa Zito]

At this point, ODDin, yes.

In fact, it feels vaguely personal. Is there an elephant in the room that I don't know about? Do you by chance have some prior annoyance with each other? I get that vibe a little, and I think it will help me get a better read as we go on if I know.

Sorry charlatan, missed this. There's nothing personal from this quarter, I happen to quite like VP.

[VP Baltar]

First up, addressing the Amished case by SC:

Edgy voting at start

This looks pretty categorically wrong to me. He switched to Sando and then back to you after he realized Sando hadn't posted on the site for two weeks. I don't think there is anything scummy about that.

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.

This is slightly better, but may be dependent upon your history with Amished. It seemed to me he was voting you for what he perceived to be rolefishing, iirc. Have you two played together before? Has he seen your role fishing?

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.

But the point of "keeping quiet" was to allow PZ to make his statement first, correct? I don't think there is a disconnect there.

While I agree with you that Amished not following up on what he considered scummy about you on his own is a bit scummy, I don't agree that his interaction with PZ says much, if anything, about his alignment.

So,

Voteworthy?

Not at the moment, no.

---

Since I haven't formally said it yet, hi Charlatan! Good to play with you again (finally).

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

I thought you said it was scummy earlier? which is it?

Why what? Why was it a serious wagon? I guess I'd have to ask what a funny wagon looked like.

No. I don't understand why we are talking past one another here. You said you wagoned him for "gameplay shennanigans". What were those specifically?

I realize it was an early wagon and games need wagons to start. I have always understood that and that's not the point I'm asking you about. I want to know what, specifically, made you feel at that point that SC was a good wagon to choose. What made the wagon SRS BSNS to you?

Loose vs tight playing is a poker term - playing with the best cards and rarely bluffing is playing tight, playing with a wider variety of hands and bluffing quite a lot is loose play. I imagine in mafia tight play means being careful with your votes, concentrating on obviously scummy things, where playing loose is throwing your vote around and pushing people all over the shop.

If that's his accusation, then I'd love for him to flesh it out.

Is there an elephant in the room that I don't know about? Do you by chance have some prior annoyance with each other? I get that vibe a little, and I think it will help me get a better read as we go on if I know.

Nah, PZ is cool in my book. He's just very wrong/possibly was attempting to launch a scummy attack on my "ignore" comment.

I am mostly looking for players who are not scumhunting or those who may be fabricating reasons to [attack others]

That's essentially what I'm attacking PZ over, though I agree that Sando is doing it at least as bad if not worse.

Zorblag, since you know ODDin best, what are your thoughts on his play this game and his attacks on PZ?

[SerialClergyman]

Sando's method to extract my alignment makes sense regardless of how much he knows me.

But for the record, I've known him since the start of high school, about 12 years, living with him for about 3 years of that time in a couple of shared houses when we were in uni.

As for mafia, we've both only ever played on MS, starting about march this year and although I've discussed some of his games and actively watched them, this is only our second game together, the first being Mafia 102 in which I died N1.

[Amished]

@VP: I've only ever seen SC in one game, and that's ongoing and not from a player perspective.

[Papa Zito]

God I hate being on defense.

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

I thought you said it was scummy earlier? which is it?

It's antitown alone. It can be scummy in context. Hypothetical example: Someone makes a case on you and you ignore the player. In this instance, I'm asking you questions and you're flat-out telling me I'm full of crap and you aren't going to answer. I call scummy on that.

No. I don't understand why we are talking past one another here. You said you wagoned him for "gameplay shennanigans". What were those specifically?

I think it's because you're not reading what I said?

hurp durp it was page 4. I know I'm good but damn, everybody's expecting miracles. I voted him because we needed a wagon and he needed to stop talking theory.

I saw him doing theory discussion early. Cut it out, says I, with a wagon.

What made the wagon SRS BSNS to you?

Let me make it as clear as I possibly can, VP: any wagon, regardless of how it starts or who started it, is SRS BSNS.

If that's his accusation, then I'd love for him to flesh it out.

It's an observation, not an accusation. I'm observing that your playstyle here is different than what I'm used to. That's all.

[VP Baltar]

It's antitown alone. It can be scummy in context. Hypothetical example: Someone makes a case on you and you ignore the player. In this instance, I'm asking you questions and you're flat-out telling me I'm full of crap and you aren't going to answer. I call scummy on that.

We're not talking about a hypothetical here, however. You said you were willing to vote me earlier for ignoring you and it certainly was not similar to the hypothetical scummy action you are describing.

Let me make it as clear as I possibly can, VP: any wagon, regardless of how it starts or who started it, is SRS BSNS.

This is patently false.

re: Voting SC over theory talk-OK, this is where our problem is coming from. Your assessment of SRS BSNS and mine are widely different. I still think you were stringing together a crappy attack against me because I called you out, but we're not making any progress like this and I guess I should be giving you more benefit of the doubt for now than I am.

Unvote

I'm most inclined to return my vote to Sando at the moment, but I want to see an updated count first.

[charlatan]

Now Sando's on a growing bandwagon

I'm the only person voting for Amished as far as I'm aware, if someone else has voted him, it was after me...

Yeah you're just making stuff up, good on you for that. Didn't take you long, I'll give you that.

I mistyped. I meant that a bandwagon is growing on you, not that you're on a growing bandwagon. You'll note that you being on a growing bandwagon not only would not make sense, but would be totally irrelevant to the point I was trying to make.

Charlatan's vote on me is the first to strike me as scummy. He's obviously read through fairly extensively, yet has either missed or chosen to ignore my post saying that while I can see peoples point yet disagree, constantly arguing about it is pretty pointless at this stage. Quoting the very first post I made regarding this and then ignoring every post subsequent to that is extremely dodgy.

Sando - simply saying you understand but disagree doesn't mean either is the case. You mischaracterized simply being asked for a solid opinion as useless pleading to get you to post some unhelpful and vague "xxx is scummy" generalizations, some run-downs, etc. Your logic in all of this has been questionable at best:

What's the difference between saying "The people I find scummy are XYZ", and "The people I find scummy are XYZ and the people I find town are ABC"? Not a lot really.

Firstly, the two are not very similar at all, since the vast majority of reads will fall between "scummy" and "town" and will more accurately be closer to neutral, if we're being honest. Even so, nobody had asked you even for anything in that format (and you seem to be raging mostly about format). You were asked for comments, most of which have been defending yourself or OMGUS-style snapping at the people criticizing you. It seems jumpy and irritable, if nothing else. But, like I said, I'm looking to vote initially for players who don't scumhunt and players who fabricate problems with other players. It took you 12 posts to do the former (your communication with SC is the first time you stop talking about yourself), and most of your problems with other players have basically been in one way or another about how they're criticizing you and how that is so very problematic.

Charlatan: Perhaps "lying" is a somewhat strong word indeed. A wrong impression was created regarding PZ's reason for voting SC. The impression was that he was voting based on a case. The truth (if we are to believe PZ) is that he was "serious" only in choosing to create a bandwagon - the reasons for chosing the candidate at hand weren't really serious (although I'd point you to SC's post 284, which nicely points out that even this interpretation is to be doubted).

That's a good point. I wonder: is it possible to be serious about wanting a bandwagon to grow and not really serious with who the target is? To expect a seriously productive outcome from something only slightly more than random? That does help clarify where those criticisms are coming from.

[AGar]

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.

Sorry if I came across a little brutal in that.

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.

I don't think I made this clear - ekiM was the second to address the "lack of proficiency" card, after Zorblag had noted it, and it looked like he was looking for an easy reason to make something. Also, I got voted for unvoting my RVS vote. Like I said, I still don't really have any reason to suspect PZ right now. It's no big surprise to me how he's going about day 1. As for the last part, I really wasn't sure on what my read on ekiM was when I unvoted, and I'm not going to throw a vote on someone for the hell of it.

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.

The style of reaction - the using the me playing the "newbie card" reasoning and unvoting to vote me - is why I found it voteworthy. Somewhat reactionary, but moreso because of how he did it than what he did.

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

That's me. How can I help you?[/quote]

I'm just curious on thoughts on the game - that was lacking from ekiM, which is what helps me establish my reads.

---

If people want to wonder about my meta, they can read this and use it as they will, if not, skip it. My playstyle is all kinds of awful. Very reactionary, OMGUS-y, and aggressive. People usually find me scummy. It's how they go about doing it that I make my reads on them. There are flaws to my gameplay which I usually defend, then there are people who make the reaches whom I usually find to be scum.

[Ojanen]

Posting before prod. I'm still damn sick, second wave, but will get content up tonight.

[Sando]

It took you 12 posts to do the former (your communication with SC is the first time you stop talking about yourself), and most of your problems with other players have basically been in one way or another about how they're criticizing you and how that is so very problematic.

So on the one hand you think I didn't talk enough about other people and only defended myself, on the other hand you think I'm not taking my accusers seriously?

[charlatan]

It took you 12 posts to do the former (your communication with SC is the first time you stop talking about yourself), and most of your problems with other players have basically been in one way or another about how they're criticizing you and how that is so very problematic.

So on the one hand you think I didn't talk enough about other people and only defended myself, on the other hand you think I'm not taking my accusers seriously?

No. I'll clarify for you. On one hand, until SC, you do not talk about other players except to accuse them of misrepping or lying about you with poor justification. You do not do anything that could be construed as scumhunting. The reason I say I don't believe you take your accusers seriously is because really you don't address the issues people level against you -- you address the issues you make believe they're leveling against you. (See: your flippant response that I've quoted.)

[Sando]

@Sando: I did not realize that you knew SC out of game/extensively in game to garner that sort of "meta-experience" with him. Probably why I didn't understand a damn thing you were trying to accomplish with that.

@SC: How much do you know of Sando?

I should clear up 1 thing, I know Serial very well IRL.

Guess I failed in clearing that up.

[Sando]

The reason I say I don't believe you take your accusers seriously is because really you don't address the issues people level against you -- you address the issues you make believe they're leveling against you.

Their issue was that I wasn't providing, and seemed to be refusing to provide, opinions on players. I figured the best way to respond to that was like I said I would, by providing opinions. The whole argument over the run-down posting etc was getting old and going nowhere, and I said so.

So yes, I addressed the issue that people accused me of, not providing opinions, like I said I would, by providing opinions when I had them.

Work time, might not be able to post for 24 hours.

[Amished]

@Sando: "I know Serial very well IRL" does not equate to "I talk with him about mafia-theory and play with him a lot on site to know that this is a very effective way to judge his alignment and get his reads on the game". I've played with somebody I've known IRL before and mafia theory or anything like that hasn't come up, we just like playing; and not necessarily with each other.

[Zorblag]

Troll be most sorry for not having been here this week. It has turned most busy. Troll will have time tomorrow and will share Troll's thoughts. There be a couple questions Troll saw and Troll will answer them.

-Zorblag R`Lyeh

[Scien]

Holy thread explosion.

I'll catch up, but probably won't be able to post anything meaningful until tomorrow. Kind of have a big thing going on today.

Sorry.

[VP Baltar]

Mod, please note the V/LA in my sig

[Papa Zito]

I just finished reading Lynch All Lurkers. Fun game.

Scien, I'd like your view on the Troll too plox.

[Ojanen]

@Zito: I don't have much against Zorblag at this point. His comments are well thought-out, reads seem plausible. Somehow his perspective feels a little detached and distant, seems more of an observer, which makes him hard to read. Neutral-to-somewhat-town.

I flaked on you guys yesterday, sorry. Full catch up coming now.

[AGar]

I'll also be V/LA for the weekend, have to run a lock-in event on campus and it's taking all my time up.

[Raskol]

Sorry for the inactivity, guys. I've been concentrating a bit more on one of my other games.

Reading through what's happened in the past few days, I don't think my vote on ekiM is doing much, and charlatan is looking good atm. I'm considering whether to move to ODDin or Sando at this point; I wouldn't mind either one of them for today.

[Ojanen]

Ha! Last thing I remember was reading this thread. Next, I was dying in a jungle, when I heard someone was using a hairdryer far away. I open my eyes and it's the fan of my computer next to my head, lights on, morning, back hurting from having slept on an orange and a thermometer.

Sorry if I came across a little brutal in that.

You didn't. No worries.

Edgy voting at start

This looks pretty categorically wrong to me. He switched to Sando and then back to you after he realized Sando hadn't posted on the site for two weeks. I don't think there is anything scummy about that.

How come you changed your mind about this?

In the meantime, I agree that amished's switch seems quite odd and edgy.

I'll tell you how, I believe, the impression was created. You said your vote on SC was serious. However, you didn't explain why - which you should've, for that matter, as "why?" would've obviously been the immediate follow up question, as indeed it was.

You not answering it in advance feels like an attempt at creating confusion and getting a chance to post more and thus appear more active (not only do you say X, but you also answer to "why X?" later - two posts at the price of one.

)
Now, VP immediately assumed that the vote was serious - a pretty fair assumption to make. You say a vote is serious, people assume it means it's backed by a case of some sort.
Part of the problem was that you were V/LA, thus unable to correct the wrong impression more quickly. However, you really should've taken a moment to think before posting, and you'd have realised that when you say a vote is serious, you might as well answer what are the serious reasons behind it (the fact that somebody had asked you whether the vote was serious obviously means he didn't understand why you'd made it).

If pushing for a bandwagon as a reason itself is enclosed at the time I would imagine the assumed stirring would lose some of its point. Seeing the underlined as scummy is shaky, really, postcount upping by one as scum motivation?

@SC: Who would you classify as pro-town thusfar? Just naming 2-3 is fine.

Also, if you have any serious town-tells, you might share those too

@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.

Explain why this was a scumpoint against Sando in your opinion please.

unvote; vote Amished

[SerialClergyman]

I'm picking up what Ojanen is putting down.

I think I'm still voting ODDin, so I'm switching.

unvote, vote Amished

[VP Baltar]

How come you changed your mind about this?

Hindsight I suppose. When I read back over it I didn't get as much of an impression that it was edgy.