The extent of my problem with Sotty had nothing to do with believing her bringing up meta as a distraction technique. This was your point. My questions focused more on why Sotty was simply bringing meta from only Zach. Sotty answered those points for me.Locke wrote:Magna: so what exactly was your problem with what Sotty said about Zach, and how was it different from what I thought?
The point was whoever hammered (although the chances were slim) would be under intense scrutiny the next Day. You're going to have to take my word for it that I was confident that this would not happen. I cannot explain it any other way unless I lie.Locke Lamora wrote:Charlie: what was the point of that L-1 vote if we have lots of time and your opinion is divided on him?
Say what???Zajnet wrote:I'm shit for analysis on D1. Charlie is acting scummy, but not enough so that I would feel confidant lynching him.
Aha, good. This reaction I find normal. Notice the glaring discrepancy of opinion/playstyle between Zajnet and ChannelDelibird. This makes me think that if actions are done as I expected, then one of them is manipulative and thus more likely to be mafia. Am I making sense here?ChannelDelibird wrote:I didn't take in enough of the Magna situation to judge his lynch-1 vote, but at the moment I'm keeping my vote on Charlie
I am sorry, but you have either misunderstood me or put words in my mouth again. Let me make this much clear: I have no idea what the heck is going on between Jack's apparent silliness/strange tactics and this is me expressing confusion over it. I did the best I could to interpret it at that time and posted it. You just make conclusions for me and I'm slightly uncomfortable with that. The summary is incorrect.MagnaofIllusion wrote:I’m not quite sure I’m following your logic here.
1. You find Jack’s tactics to be something akin to weak reaction fishing.
2. You like catalyzing discussion but aren’t ‘fond’ of Jack’s tactics.
3. You voted for Sotty to based on tactics that aren’t convincing purely to increase discussion.
If this summary is correct I don’t see a Pro-Town reason for you to have chosen to vote Sotty over Jack. You didn't feel his reasons were credible but felt Sotty's defense was less so? This combined with your wishy-washy jump onto my wagon looks more like Scum looking for a popular wagon as opposed to Town looking to ‘stir’ discussion.
Yes sir! I shall ISO you right now and see what I an come out with...MagnaofIllusion on a case on him wrote:I’m looking forward to this.
Aha, a cautious approach. And a case on Jack to boot. Your response is noted.imkingdavid wrote:First of all, UNVOTE: Magna. That was a random vote which has now become a wagon (at L-1, now L-2 if I'm not mistaken), and I am unsure that such a quick lynch would be helpful at this point.
Um, I believe you just commented on a statement made by Jack that is best left not commented on (somewhat like a rhetorical comment) because what he said was invalid due to the fact we don't know a faked explanation:Sando in response to Jack wrote:Also, vote-hoping is null, it is not pro-town, depending on the reasons for it, it could be either scummy or pro-town. The act itself is null, the motivation can be a tell either way.
Jack's invalid opinion which is cleverly disguised as a statement wrote:vote hopping is pro town, fake explanations are anti-town.
I don't buy this for a secondcharlie wrote:I'm "stalling" because I'm lazy. We have lots of time and an active playerlist (with some V/LAs, but that does not pose a problem).
I accept responsibility for putting him at L-1. I've been meaning to step up attacks in more games to try a different playstyle.
My view is as follows:Sando wrote:Farside, what has Charlie missed?
Stalling here. It's easy to go back and see what Sotty was asking here and in regards to what.Charlie wrote:Could you elaborate more on this particular point:Sotty7 wrote:What isn't convincing about my defense? What don't you like in particular about it? What points needed elaboration in your mind?
MOI clarifiedwhat he was looking for and what he felt charlie did not answer adequately but charlie ignores that point and question.charlie wrote:Odd. I did answer in #48, but you don't seem to find it adequate or you missed it completely. Here it is:MagnaofIllusion wrote:Someone else asked what the effect of said pressure would be. You never answered. Are you satisfied with Sando’s statements since this post?
You could try reading the thread? But look back and see the reaction to the pressure on Jack, only a few people were interested in pushing him.Charlie Post 141 wrote:Everyone was against the pressure on Jack? I'm sorry but could you point this one out to me?Sotty7 wrote:And it made no sense because I wasn't complaining about how people were pressuring me, just noting how everyone was against the pressure on Jack.
Any particular reason you are continuing with this pointless line of questioning?Charlie Post 141 wrote:Try me, I'm easy to persuade.
What do you think? You are allowed to actually express thoughts as opposed to just dropping in one-liners with little substance.Jack wrote:Is cdb lurking scum?
So you felt it was worthwhile to put me at L-1 and risk a quick / accidental mislynch because you felt the chances were small? And why should that person face more scrutiny than you, who voted for someone you didn’t even have a solid scum-read on (based on your I’m conflicted statement)? Finally why can’t you explain your confidence without lying?Charlie wrote:The point was whoever hammered (although the chances were slim) would be under intense scrutiny the next Day. You're going to have to take my word for it that I was confident that this would not happen. I cannot explain it any other way unless I lie.
So you are stating one of CDB or Zaj is more likely to be Mafia but aren’t willing to explicitly say which. I assume you are finding Zaj scummy but it’s not clear. Looks somewhat like an attempt to postion yourself to go in whatever direction the wind blows regarding those two. And if you do find them more likely to be Mafia why aren’t you following up with that person? Please don’t respond with ‘I’m lazy’.Charlie wrote:Aha, good. This reaction I find normal. Notice the glaring discrepancy of opinion/playstyle between Zajnet and ChannelDelibird. This makes me think that if actions are done as I expected, then one of them is manipulative and thus more likely to be mafia. Am I making sense here?
So Jack’s actions you found confusing and the best way to sort that out is to take his ‘side’ and vote for Sotty? If you were confused why didn’t you question Jack? Why are you uncomfortable about others drawing conclusions based on your play? That’s the essence of the game of Mafia at its most basic. Didn’t you chide me for not expressing opinions about people’s play earlier? You can't credibly call out someone for not expressing opinions and then attack them when they do.Charlie wrote:I am sorry, but you have either misunderstood me or put words in my mouth again. Let me make this much clear: I have no idea what the heck is going on between Jack's apparent silliness/strange tactics and this is me expressing confusion over it. I did the best I could to interpret it at that time and posted it. You just make conclusions for me and I'm slightly uncomfortable with that. The summary is incorrect.
Charlie wrote:I'm inclined to agree that they may be better lynches out there. On Day one, we all have to work with what little information we have.
UNVOTE: MagnaofIllusion
So there may be other, better lynches. You’ve hinted at others playing in a manner that indicates they may be Mafia. But your ‘aggressive’ play is not to question or pressure others? I think this borders on Cognitive Dissonance, which only further enhances my scum-read on you.Charlie wrote:EBOWP: Wait, why did I unvote Magna?? I am playing aggressively this game! No fear!
VOTE: MagnaofIllusion
Crap, I missed this. You don't put someone at L-1 without thinking that there's a risk they'd be hammered. There's every chance that there's some other jackass posting the same thing at the same time. Also, there's the assumption that the person who hammered would be under intense scrutiny tomorrow. There's only 1 reason they'd be under intense scrutiny, and that's if they hammered town, someone who hammered scum in that situation wouldn't be under scrutiny. So you are assuming that the person you put at L-1 is town...Charlie wrote:The point was whoever hammered (although the chances were slim) would be under intense scrutiny the next Day. You're going to have to take my word for it that I was confident that this would not happen. I cannot explain it any other way unless I lie.
I didn't see much on that side.Sotty7 wrote:You could try reading the thread? But look back and see the reaction to the pressure on Jack, only a few people were interested in pushing him.
I dunno.Sotty7 wrote:Any particular reason you are continuing with this pointless line of questioning?
You make it sound like it is a bad thing.MagnaofIllusion wrote:So you felt it was worthwhile to put me at L-1 and risk a quick / accidental mislynch because you felt the chances were small? And why should that person face more scrutiny than you, who voted for someone you didn’t even have a solid scum-read on (based on your I’m conflicted statement)? Finally why can’t you explain your confidence without lying?
How do I figure out which is mafia..it is like Day 1. Again, you make it sound like it is a bad thing.MagnaofIllusion wrote:So you are stating one of CDB or Zaj is more likely to be Mafia but aren’t willing to explicitly say which. I assume you are finding Zaj scummy but it’s not clear. Looks somewhat like an attempt to postion yourself to go in whatever direction the wind blows regarding those two. And if you do find them more likely to be Mafia why aren’t you following up with that person? Please don’t respond with ‘I’m lazy’.
Certainly better than sitting around to the point that I get accused of active lurking! Which I am glad it has not come to that.MagnaofIllusion wrote:So Jack’s actions you found confusing and the best way to sort that out is to take his ‘side’ and vote for Sotty? If you were confused why didn’t you question Jack? Why are you uncomfortable about others drawing conclusions based on your play? That’s the essence of the game of Mafia at its most basic. Didn’t you chide me for not expressing opinions about people’s play earlier? You can't credibly call out someone for not expressing opinions and then attack them when they do.
Actually if I were to go on this statement alone I think it justifies my vote on you (Over-complication of simple things = mafia-ish). Would you kindly tell me more about this Cognitive Dissonance and how it fits on me being mafia?MagnaofIllusion wrote:So there may be other, better lynches. You’ve hinted at others playing in a manner that indicates they may be Mafia. But your ‘aggressive’ play is not to question or pressure others? I think this borders on Cognitive Dissonance, which only further enhances my scum-read on you.
I put faith that this /in-vitational game is jackass-free (we were somehow selectively selected by each other and all...). Anyway, I'm having trouble understanding the logic above... I would think that both the person who hammered and the person who put the lnychee at L-1 would be under scrutiny.Sando wrote:Crap, I missed this. You don't put someone at L-1 without thinking that there's a risk they'd be hammered. There's every chance that there's some other jackass posting the same thing at the same time. Also, there's the assumption that the person who hammered would be under intense scrutiny tomorrow. There's only 1 reason they'd be under intense scrutiny, and that's if they hammered town, someone who hammered scum in that situation wouldn't be under scrutiny. So you are assuming that the person you put at L-1 is town...
That was your original objection. I don't see anything there about why she brought up only Zach. The tone of that seems more along the lines of my objection; that is, she's making a point against Zach but excusing (or undercutting, if you prefer) it at the same time that she makes it.MagnaofIllusion wrote:So you call out Zach for lurking as Scum Meta and then undercut your own argument?Sotty wrote:I'd also like to point out that Zach is lurking. Normally with a game only just opening I wouldn't go as far as calling someone on lurking, but he has posted in all this other games today but is avoiding this one. Zach's scum meta is to lurk, he hates playing scum and will only contribute to the thread if called upon. The thing is, he knows that I know this is his scum meta because I poke him about it all the time. SO I am feeling very WIFOM'ed right now.