Open 334: Friends and Enemies in Icetown (Town Win)

[ceonn]

Well, hello everyone, sorry for the late post. I checked this morning and the game hadn't started yet, but that obviously changed quickly.

[Zachrulez]

Zach, can you explain what you mean by "It worked last time"? It's apparently something compelling, given that it caused JasonT to change his random vote.

It references an ongoing game so explaining it would delve into the territory of discussing an ongoing game, suffice to say it's an arbitrary reason for the vote.

[Smear]

Missed this.

vote Paraffin

for encouraging a lynch on the first page

How did anything in Parafin's post encourage a lynch on "the first page"? Nothing in his post said anything about a lynch, let alone it happening that quickly.

I was just RVS posting, interpreting "L-4" as hoping for a lynch even though it doesn't make sense to do so.



BTW I'm rather confused, I could have sworn I made another post on this thread.

[AlgoricalTyphoon]

Princess, pretty much agree with most of this post, and now that you've explained your train of thought, it makes much more sense. I really find the quickvotes particularly scummy, but now that you've explained your suspicions, it was definitely the best place to start at the time. Still have a couple things I want to respond to, though.

1. I don't get this at all. You FOS the person who started the wagon. 2. Yet, he had nothing to do with "Descent going to L-4 in three posts in a row", no? He just put the first vote on.

3. Then you vote the second person on the wagon for "jumping on", 4. and only FOS the third person? What? 5. Why are JasonT more scummy for jumping on the wagon than Paraffin? 6. Since your concern is based on him getting to L-4, why not vote the person that put him at L-4 in the first place?

1. Yes, I FoS the person who started the wagon. I FoS the person who started the wagon, under the suspicion that Zach could be scum, and that one or both of his partners could be on the same wagon. This is a -biiiig- "if", just a hypothesis if you will. It just seemed strange to me that three votes in a row would be on the same person. So I only FoS the person who started it, since, if townie, he couldn't have known that would have happened. But then there is the 'it worked last time' quote, that I have to wonder about.[/QUOTE]

Really, I should have phrased it as "You FOS the person who put the first vote on the wagon", because there is, in my opinion, a distinct difference there. "Starting a wagon", to me, means really pushing for it. Giving reasons why a player is scum, and actively saying that there should be a reason for the bandwagon. To me, zach didn't do that. He gave a reason for his vote, yes, but he didn't push for anybody to follow it. It was much more passive. He didn't even explain his reason, so unless you were in the know, there was no basis to jump on.

I'm not sure i make total sense, so let me provide a couple examples-

In my last post, I was "pushing for" a Princess Kiwi wagon, because I was giving reasons for my vote and providing reasoning as to why you were scummy. This would provide support for a bandwagon.

Meanwhile, if after JasonT's random vote, a bandwagon was formed before he posted again, he would have been the "first person on" the zachwagon. He did nothing to help it grow, didn't push for it, it just came into being and he happened to be the first person to vote for zach.

Does that make any sense?

3. Yeah, I voted for the second person 'jumping on' the wagon, because I don't like buddying. That, in my book, was plain and clear buddying. Jason's entire post was literally: Vote " ", Agreed...just in a different format. All he did was agree with Zach and voted for Descent, he even went out of his way to unvote first...seems strange not to post anything else along with a vote, even though this is RVS.

This is the only real thing in the post that bugs me: if you found Jason scummy for buddying, why didn't you mention that in your post? It would actually have made your reasoning (and thus your vote) much more transparent.

That said, Jason and Zach seem to have a very interesting relationship thus far. He first RV votes Zach, and then jumps on Zach's wagon. Not sure that it's scummy (WIFOM, but I doubt two scumbuddies would provide connections to one another this blatant, especially this early in the game.), but it is odd to the extreme. Maybe when the Descent vote is explained, it'll be cleared up a bit.

And, AlgoricalTy, a little defensive of Jason? I mean, this

is

RVS. While my vote wasn't entirely random, nor was Jason's. Yours wasn't either. You flat out voted for me because of my vote of Jason, what if I

had

voted Paraffin instead?

This is kind of ironic, because the main possibility floating through my mind was weak distancing from Jason!Scum.

If you had voted Paraffin instead, I would still have been curious as to your Zach FOS, and found your logic for the vote weak, but I would have had much less of a problem with your post. My main problem with your vote was how inconsistent your logic seemed.

You: There was a quickwagon on Descent! He's now at L-4! I don't like that. FOS: 1st voter who didn't push for a quickwagon. Vote: Person who put Descent at L-5. FOS: Person who put Descent at L-4, which is what I found weird in the first place.
Me: WTF?

I am very analytical...and I have a habit of making long wall-posts, as you can see here. I try to shorten it down, but I don't hold anything back.When I see something suspicious I usually quote it, and question the player who said it. If you look at my meta (1134 and 1137), I don't like voting unless I have a reason behind my vote and thus can back-up my vote whenever someone questions me.

NO META IN THIS HOUSE, YOUNG LADY.

But seriously, in my opinion, WoT are definitely good in moderation. When making a lengthy response or catch-up post, they're ok. But otherwise, they can clutter the thread, and make it so that other players start skimming your posts, instead of analyzing them. Try to be careful using them.

Questions:

1. Pacific, USA.

2. See above- moderation, they're ok. All over the place, or even twice a page? Not a good idea. (This is totally hypocritical, given that this is the second WoT this page.)

3. PR. Vanilla is fine, but I like strange/interesting roles. As scum, I'd become way too nervous and jumpy, primarily because I didn't want to let my teammates down.

EDIT: kk.

[ThAdmiral]

'sup

Just checking in.

[malpascp]

So many walls this soon? Oh, no, here we go again...

[AntB]

RQS answers:
1) BST (UTC+0100)
2) Hate them
3) Scum or SK

---

NO META IN THIS HOUSE, YOUNG LADY.

I love you.

[paraffin]

1: Central US.
2: When they say something useful...
3: Only had townie, can't really say.

[GMan]

Those walls... TL;DR. Not even joking.

Is anyone else tired of this whole thing where someone takes an RVS vote too seriously and it starts a ridiculous back and forth which I've read a million times over? It's tiresome without having to read walls of it. Ridiculous.

Anyway - BST, conciseness is pro-town, townie.

[Smear]

oh, I missed this somehow

1. US EST
2. keeping it short and concise is better
3. never played scum

[jasonT1981]

GMan makes sense, as Zach has already said it cant be talked about due to it being an on going game, but there was reasons as to why I jumped onto the wagon right away.

As for my first vote on Zach, that someone brought up... eh, I usually always vote Zach in games we are in, then get on board a wagon I can see as getting discussion going. I don't see princess as scummy right now for questioning on it though, but not going to write it off as a noob either. She is asking questions and putting her points out there right from the start.

Makes me believe town (though could be eger scum trying to gain town points) however I am feeling my first option is better right now, given how forthcoming she was when I asked for past games, even going into detail on them to help us get a better read.

[paraffin]

Yeah, I'm gonna say if anything was accomplished so far it was to make Princess seem more towny. AlGore as well.

I haven't done that much so I have to resist my urges to call "hi, i'm not gonna say anything useful" players scummy, but that's my best heuristic atm, really.

Anyway, UNVOTE: ; it seems RVS is coming to a close

[jasonT1981]

Al, why are you saying no to meta? seems weird, anything that can help town you would want to use, so to say no to it, is strange indeed.

[Princess Kiwi]

1. Really, I should have phrased it as "You FOS the person who put the first vote on the wagon", because there is, in my opinion, a distinct difference there. "Starting a wagon", to me, means really pushing for it. Giving reasons why a player is scum, and actively saying that there should be a reason for the bandwagon. To me, zach didn't do that. He gave a reason for his vote, yes, but he didn't push for anybody to follow it. It was much more passive. He didn't even explain his reason, so unless you were in the know, there was no basis to jump on.

I can see your logic here, although I believe I was following a different train of logic at the time. I form theories, and from those theories I put pressure on people. Under the assumption that Zach was intentionally 'starting' a wagon, while he did not push for one, he posted something that at this point, clearly he and a few other players knew about from a previous game, although was unable to share to us due to it being an ongoing game. I was thinking at the time of a possibility of Zach simply placing a vote, and fellow scum-buddies jumping on and buddying him, although well under the impression that most scum wouldn't be that obvious. Perhaps the reason I made a major note of it was for future reference, when I review the game further in the days. I was simply following the train of thought: "What

if

those people were 'in the know', and it was WIFOM? (Scum wouldn't be so obvious about it, would they?! Therefore we must not be scum!)

Does that make any sense?

It does make sense, but again I was doing this mostly as a means because: I was curious and wanted answers, and that I wanted to place pressure and see what would happen.

This is the only real thing in the post that bugs me: if you found Jason scummy for buddying, why didn't you mention that in your post? It would actually have made your reasoning (and thus your vote) much more transparent.

There are several reasons for this, actually, but they all involve this one line of thought: I was on my lunch break at home, and decided to see if the game had started yet, and saw three posts in a row that all had the same vote. So I'm thinking to myself, is this really that obvious, or am I looking in the wrong direction? I wanted to FoS for now, and still participate in the RVS (since, I've never -really- done RVS before), so I placed a few FoS' and a vote. In short, it was a lack of time that caused the small post >.<.

That said, Jason and Zach seem to have a very interesting relationship thus far. He first RV votes Zach, and then jumps on Zach's wagon. Not sure that it's scummy (WIFOM, but I doubt two scumbuddies would provide connections to one another this blatant, especially this early in the game.), but it is odd to the extreme. Maybe when the Descent vote is explained, it'll be cleared up a bit.

Except from what I understand, I don't think we'll get a full example of the Descent vote, unless we hunt down the game ourselves and don't mention it, since it's still an ongoing game.

This is kind of ironic, because the main possibility floating through my mind was weak distancing from Jason!Scum.

Touche` Monsieur.

But, how was that a weak form of distancing? If it would have been a truly weak form of distancing, I would have outright bussed Jason with a mere FoS, and possibly placed a vote on Paraffin instead.

If you had voted Paraffin instead, I would still have been curious as to your Zach FOS, and found your logic for the vote weak, but I would have had much less of a problem with your post. My main problem with your vote was how inconsistent your logic seemed.

You: There was a quickwagon on Descent! He's now at L-4! I don't like that. FOS: 1st voter who didn't push for a quickwagon. Vote: Person who put Descent at L-5. FOS: Person who put Descent at L-4, which is what I found weird in the first place.
Me: WTF?

That's only because I had a limited amount of time to post, and wasn't able to fully explain the FoS' and the vote. But to me, it made perfect sense.

I can see how that's a little strange from your way of thinking, but I wasn't thinking of 'didn't push for a wagon', I was thinking of voting the person who voted right after another, and jumping on a bandwagon.

NO META IN THIS HOUSE, YOUNG LADY.

But seriously, in my opinion, WoT are definitely good in moderation. When making a lengthy response or catch-up post, they're ok. But otherwise, they can clutter the thread, and make it so that other players start skimming your posts, instead of analyzing them. Try to be careful using them.

Jason asked for the list of games, and since I have nothing to hide, I willingly provided a list of completed games. And -finally-, someone else who agrees that WoT are good. Perhaps I do abuse them, as shown now, but I'll try to scatter things out to where they aren't so bad. Though, believe me, imagine three walls of texts in a row totalling over 1200 words for a single wall, due to having to re-read 40 pages and create cases...these are miniature in comparison.

Is anyone else tired of this whole thing where someone takes an RVS vote too seriously and it starts a ridiculous back and forth which I've read a million times over? It's tiresome without having to read walls of it. Ridiculous.

I saw something scummy, and pointed it out. WoT are nice when they involve scum-hunting, even if it is over something simple.

For the time being I'll UNVOTE: JasonT1981 as I don't have any solid reads just yet.

I would just like to make a list, to sum up this wall post, for future reference, as to the currently most active players in order of most activity to least activity.

Jason- 8 posts thus far
Princess Kiwi- 5 posts (including this one) thus far
Paraffin- 4 posts thus far
smear- 3 posts thus far
AlgorixalTyphoon- 3 posts thus far
Zachrules- 2 posts thus far
Antb- 2 posts thus far
malpascp- 2 posts thus far
descent- one post thus far
ceonn- one post thus far
ThAdmiral- one post thus far
GMan- one post thus far
Princesskdw- zero posts thus far

I find it strange how ceonn, and ThAdmiral only made entry posts, without answering the RQS (despite being just a few posts prior), or providing insight as to the going-ons of the game. Shows that they haven't really read the game, and are 'just' making appearances to avoid the lurking suspicion? Hmmm....

Anyway, off to work, family coming in the morning, and work from 12-9PM US Central tomorrow, so if I don't get on tonight, it'll be tomorrow night. Again, sorry for the wall, I'll try to trim it down next time, although IMHO it wasn't

really

that bad.

[paraffin]

VOTE: princess because I'm too lazy to read anything she says

[malpascp]

1: I'm on GTM (Portugal)

2: Keep it simple. I like walls when they are needed. I never played a game where walls were needed.

3: check my signature for the answer

[jasonT1981]

Yea, really not happy with Para now, Princess makes a post, with obivious content and has a lot of interesting things to say, and you cant be bothered to read it?

Yea, thats called coasting. Town would want to read all that is said. Scum will try and slide by not really wanting to pay attention and just get through the day.

Screw the descent wagon of RVS. This needs done now.

unvote
vote:paraffin

[IceGuy]

Vote Count

Descent (2): Zachrulez, Smear

Smear (1): AntB
malpascp (1): malpascp

Princess Kiwi (2): AlgoricalTyphoon, paraffin

paraffin (1): jasonT1981

Not voting (6): princesskdw, Descent, ThAdmiral, ceonn, GMan, Princess Kiwi

With 13 alive, it's 7 to lynch or no lynch.

Deadline is September 23rd, 8 p.m. CEST.

[Smear]

I'm not sure if coasting or just lazy about reading, but an extra vote or two should get an explanation out of him.

Vote Paraffin

[GMan]

Walls are

not

nice. There are sometimes necessary when discussing a complex case. Most of the time though, they are convoluted, disrupting and distracting. And the simpler the point behind them is, the more convoluted it gets. If you feel they are necessary to articulate what you want to say, then you need to learn to consolidate them down. Think about your core point then address it as concisely as you can. Not only does it encourage town to actually read and care about what you say it gives scum less to grip on to when they want to draw you into wall-wars (or even worse, when townies engage in this).

Jason, I like a paraffin vote right now, but not because of why you did; quite frankly, I empathise with him. However, I'm going to vote him purely based on his flip-flop between posts #36 and #39.

VOTE: paraffin

[Descent]

1). GMT + 10 or Australian Eastern Time
2). I'm not a big fan of walls, granted, they can provide some information but all the same.
3). Town is more fun, plus I am kind of a fail scum.

[ThAdmiral]

I don't get this at all. You FOS the person who started the wagon. Yet, he had nothing to do with "Descent going to L-4 in three posts in a row", no? He just put the first vote on.

Then you vote the second person on the wagon for "jumping on", and only FOS the third person? What? Why are JasonT more scummy for jumping on the wagon than Paraffin? Since your concern is based on him getting to L-4, why not vote the person that put him at L-4 in the first place?

Vote: Princess Kiwi

Congrats to altyph for the first proper post in this game, and it is actually a good one!

Jason voted for Zach, Zach voted for Decent saying 'it worked last time', then Jason unvoted Zach and voted Decent only saying 'agreed'. What worked last time? Why would Jason automatically vote with Zach?

Why didn't you ask them instead of just voting them?

Oooh I'm not liking PK at all right now. Her response to being attacked is to post a huge wall of text. I have done this as scum before; it's sort of a combination of panicking and also serves to muddy the waters by having so much stuff for people to read through. THEN she posts up RQS which only really serves as a distraction. We're well and truly out of the RVS stage by now.

vote: princess kiwi

This is the only real thing in the post that bugs me: if you found Jason scummy for buddying, why didn't you mention that in your post? It would actually have made your reasoning (and thus your vote) much more transparent.

Bingo. This reason only came to light when PK was attacked for her vote. Initially all she said was: "for jumping on the wagon". No mention of buddying. Changing the story = scum.

There are several reasons for this, actually, but they all involve this one line of thought: I was on my lunch break at home, and decided to see if the game had started yet, and saw three posts in a row that all had the same vote. So I'm thinking to myself, is this really that obvious, or am I looking in the wrong direction? I wanted to FoS for now, and still participate in the RVS (since, I've never -really- done RVS before), so I placed a few FoS' and a vote. In short, it was a lack of time that caused the small post >.<.

No time to add "...and buddying."? That's two words, I don't buy that at all. I often post on my phone at work, so I know what it's like, but that doesn't ring true to me at all.

I would just like to make a list, to sum up this wall post, for future reference, as to the currently most active players in order of most activity to least activity.

Jason- 8 posts thus far
Princess Kiwi- 5 posts (including this one) thus far
Paraffin- 4 posts thus far
smear- 3 posts thus far
AlgorixalTyphoon- 3 posts thus far
Zachrules- 2 posts thus far
Antb- 2 posts thus far
malpascp- 2 posts thus far
descent- one post thus far
ceonn- one post thus far
ThAdmiral- one post thus far
GMan- one post thus far
Princesskdw- zero posts thus far

I find it strange how ceonn, and ThAdmiral only made entry posts, without answering the RQS (despite being just a few posts prior), or providing insight as to the going-ons of the game. Shows that they haven't really read the game, and are 'just' making appearances to avoid the lurking suspicion? Hmmm...

Awesome! More stuff to distract people from the case on PK! And I completely

love

the soft attack on me.
To respond to your "accusation" I was posting as a courtesy to let people know I was present in the game. I hadn't read the game at that point. I think the rqs questions are a bit silly, but I'll answer them anyway:
1. Australian EST
2. less walls are better, but sometimes they are necessary
3. town pr. I used to like scum but I found I was having a lot less fun constantly lying and fabricating my stance on things. (sort of like what you are doing now I'm sorry, that was a cheap shot...)

[ThAdmiral]

Yea, really not happy with Para now, Princess makes a post, with obivious content and has a lot of interesting things to say, and you cant be bothered to read it?

Yea, thats called coasting. Town would want to read all that is said. Scum will try and slide by not really wanting to pay attention and just get through the day.

Screw the descent wagon of RVS. This needs done now.

unvote
vote:paraffin

You attack paraffin for this, but not gman. Why?

[jasonT1981]

Yea, really not happy with Para now, Princess makes a post, with obivious content and has a lot of interesting things to say, and you cant be bothered to read it?

Yea, thats called coasting. Town would want to read all that is said. Scum will try and slide by not really wanting to pay attention and just get through the day.

Screw the descent wagon of RVS. This needs done now.

unvote
vote:paraffin

You attack paraffin for this, but not gman. Why?

I fail to see your point. GMan didn't come out and say he wasn't going to bother reading a post.

[AlgoricalTyphoon]

NOTE: My meta comment was mostly tongue-in-cheek; I tried to show that in the next line. That said, I don't like meta too much. Don't feel that it's particularly reliable, or at least any more so than your typical scumtell. Competent players are going to at least try to have consistent playstyles, and differences are going to be minute. Meta has its place, but I don't feel that it's really a particularly big one, and definitely not something particularly worthy of discussion early-game.

And PK- It wouldn't be hardcore bussing, simply because your reasoning for Jason wasn't particularly strong, and wasn't going anywhere. The logic gap should show that you wanted to try and throw a vote on a buddy, even if your reasoning didn't make that much sense. That said, I'm liking jason a lot ATM, and distance arguments mean nothing pre-flip.

Like Admiral's #46. PK is trying to make her motivations transparent, which is a slight towntell, and her vote basis was decent for Page 1. Her excuse does bug me a lot too though, and that list was utter fluff, especially considering that we are only on Page 2. Amount of posts means nothing. For the record, those RQS were pretty fluffy too, and her attack on people for not immediately answering them is extremely... off. Easy way to fake-scumhunt.

Ugh, that last post really is making me re-think my townread.

Paraffin I don't like at all. He quickly takes a stab at players who made quick check-in posts, without committing because "lolhypocrisy". He tosses out a couple towntells, and then automatically contradicts one because "lol long posts are bad". In fact, it seems to contradict #32 too, which indicates that he doesn't MIND long-posts "when they have something to say". Did PK's posts not have "anything useful to say"? If not, why did it make her "look more towny"? Your reads do not correspond with your actions, which makes me believe them to be ingenuine.

Unvote

VOTE: Paraffin