I don't understand what your asking here. What does scien have to do with what you did?ElectricBadger wrote:Not avoiding your question. My answer included my reasoning - that a very weak reason for a vote was better than a completely random vote. My question to you was also valid: what makes my vote different than what you attacked Scien for not doing?
Maemuki wrote:Nothing else to say, Yank?
I mean, I think we're far from the RVS. But maybe, just maybe, that's just me.
(I know I'm missing some stuff. I'll get to them in a minute.)
What is a vote to you except an expression of someone you find scummy if it's not someone you think should be lynched? Should I not defend my actions to your comment and let it slide is that not scummy as well?ODDin wrote:farside: I voted for you on the 3rd page of the first day of the game, with no other votes against you. At this stage, I don't see my vote as expressing "I want you lynched at the end of this day". It's meant to pressure you. It's there so I can analyse the way you and others react to it. At the moment, I don't see anyone at all I want to actually lynch - all current arguments are pretty weak, mine included.
Meta on you being emotional and aggressive as town will certainly help. If this is indeed a matter of playstyle , my suspicion of you will drop. As I've said, my perception is somewhat coloured by a recent game where scum acted in a way quite similar to yours here (bussing their scumpartner, actually, but considering that right now is too big a logical leap).
I really wish I was a multi voter right about now. You would be my second suspect at this point.Well yes, but the argument started in the RVS. I just didn't like farside gunning for Scien right away.
You attacked Scien because he cast a random vote rather than pursue a weak lead (wulfy not having confirmed).farside22 wrote:I don't understand what your asking here. What does scien have to do with what you did?ElectricBadger wrote:Not avoiding your question. My answer included my reasoning - that a very weak reason for a vote was better than a completely random vote. My question to you was also valid: what makes my vote different than what you attacked Scien for not doing?
attack is a strong word. I questioned your vote and reasoning for you vote. Nothing more and nothing less.ElectricBadger wrote:You attacked Scien because he cast a random vote rather than pursue a weak lead (wulfy not having confirmed).farside22 wrote:I don't understand what your asking here. What does scien have to do with what you did?ElectricBadger wrote:Not avoiding your question. My answer included my reasoning - that a very weak reason for a vote was better than a completely random vote. My question to you was also valid: what makes my vote different than what you attacked Scien for not doing?
You attacked me because I cast a vote for a weak reason (Nik not posting) rather than a random one.
Is there something I'm missing, or a way to reconcile these actions? Right now I can only read your actions as hypocrisy; casting accusations without any real basis in an attempt to lynch innocents.
I don't believe you, not after all your interrogations when Scien voted randomly.farside22 wrote:I do not understand why you would change from a RVS to a non talker so early in the game.
Nikanor+Fuzzy is our first team of baddies. Joins with Nik in blowing a vote out of proportion, playing up the victim card; excuses his own silence at the same time; attempts to stifle a townie's only weapon and excuses mislynching on principle. It's a veritable buffet of scumminess.Fuzzy wrote:I agree with ODDin that the Farside/Scien skirmish was a lot about nothing. Nikanor has my empathy for being attacked for lurking.
I'm not saying that we need to be absolutely positive to vote for somebody; we rarely have that sort of feeling towards somebody. Regardless, on principle, one should only vote for those whom they would feel comfortable lynching. Also, I don't like pressure votes. It creates too great a scapegoat for people who vote badly, whether those people do so unintentionally or otherwise.
Lurker lynching is typically scum driven hence my questioning of your vote. Although after you had a point you made on Nikor. I still want to ask why the change of heart from RVS to lurker voting.ElectricBadger wrote:Perhaps a strong word, but I think suitable. I've given plenty of reasoning for my vote, and repeatedly stated that the alternative was a random vote.
I don't believe you, not after all your interrogations when Scien voted randomly.farside22 wrote:I do not understand why you would change from a RVS to a non talker so early in the game.
Do you know scien to be innocent? Are you saying that my reasons forl attacking scien lacked merit?ElectricBadger wrote:You attacked Scien because he cast a random vote rather than pursue a weak lead (wulfy not having confirmed).farside22 wrote:I don't understand what your asking here. What does scien have to do with what you did?ElectricBadger wrote:Not avoiding your question. My answer included my reasoning - that a very weak reason for a vote was better than a completely random vote. My question to you was also valid: what makes my vote different than what you attacked Scien for not doing?
You attacked me because I cast a vote for a weak reason (Nik not posting) rather than a random one.
Is there something I'm missing, or a way to reconcile these actions? Right now I can only read your actions as hypocrisy; casting accusations without any real basis in an attempt to lynch innocents.
Where? Farside's vote? When I said the argument was a lot about nothing, I meant it referring to # of pages, words, etc., not the severity of the accusations, which was indeed little.ElectricBadger wrote: (Fuzzyman) Joins with Nik in blowing a vote out of proportion
Only so far as my post could be considered buddying with Nikanor. Having empathy isn't a plea for sympathy.playing up the victim card
I've not dismissed any shots at my inactivity. What are you talking about?excuses his own silence at the same time
I have no interest in this; I only want for it to be used wisely.attempts to stifle a townie's only weapon
No, I said that my principle dictated that one should only vote for those whom they would be comfortable lynching.and excuses mislynching on principle.
Again, not trying to lynch a lurker, trying to send a message I won't tolerate it. If you feel that's scummy, fair 'nuff. I need to re-read if that motivation coincides with your questions.farside22 wrote:Lurker lynching is typically scum driven hence my questioning of your vote. Although after you had a point you made on Nikor. I still want to ask why the change of heart from RVS to lurker voting.
Now that is more clear as to a deffinate is more of a what changed your mind but looking in whole at your reasoning is not my questioning.
He currently reads to me as town who made a bad play out of fear of risking himself. I think your reasoning had merit - I mentioned that before - but was the opposite of your comments to me, and this self-conflict is what I'm questioning. I think your investigation into Scien was out of proportion to the read, but that may have just been your way of forcing the game out of RVS. I also didn't agree with any of your insistence that he didn't initially find it a weak argument and I'm not sure why you kept forcing that issue.farside22 wrote:Do you know scien to be innocent? Are you saying that my reasons forl attacking scien lacked merit?
Possibly, but I notice player-veterans are often actually better than they realize. That, or I've seen too many games. Either way.farside22 wrote:Not really it's been almost 3 moths or longer (I lost track) since I played mafia. My last few months before giving it up I lost a lot of interest in the game it's self. I don't feel like a great record after being gone and running into players I never heard of. It's like starting a new.Bullshit. Look at the track record and her standing. Clearly that was to force players off their guard by luring them into attacking her because she could easily defeat them in arguments, I'm sure. This would be an interesting move as either side which means it tells nothing of alignment but of her clever play style. And yes, you will read walls and analyze and play hardcore or you will get lost, lose interest, and replace out. Or be zwetschenwasser. Either way, you better be the first or this will be a long, tedious, and boring game.
Back to the person I'm voting:
What do you think of the scien/farside discussion.
Non-committal.ODDin wrote:Well well, out of the RVS already.
On the farside / Scien exchange:
It seems to me farside is being extremely and overly aggressive. The argument against Scien does have a point, but it's not an overly strong point. Yes, it raises an eyebrow that he decided not to push it a bit further to get out of the RVS - but nothing more than that. It's a very, very weak scum tell at best. farside is, IMO, blowing it completely out of proportion.
She's also getting "royally pissed" over this, and I'm not sure why that is. I mean, really, headdesk over that?
It's also giving me a tunneling vibe. She's practically disregarded all other players during that exchange.
Why would she do that? I have an idea:Could well be read as: look how extremely and terribly aggressive I'm being right now. Ergo: I'm not scum.[/qoute]farside wrote: I notice that very few scum now how to be aggressive in the beginning of the game. They either followers, or they hem and haw or backtrack or make wishy washy comments. I don't go after the agressive person. typically scum watches, waits and doesn't do much else.
Something seems contradictory here.Who said I'm playing randomly. *Growls*ODDin wrote: And my personal recent reference of scum being extremely aggressive at the start of the game: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11779 (DNW, scum, attacking Starbuck, also scum, very aggressively in the early stages of the game)
So, I'm currently getting scummy vibes from farside, thus,unvote, vote: farside
Other thing of note: in posts 26 and 27, Wulfy and maemuki continue playing randomly even though we're clearly out of the RVS by that point. Especially alarming is Maemuki, who's also still voting for herself.
*bites* You place me in a basket with someone I'm attacking? Did you even read my post or see the first line of my statement (involving dog acting) and just ignore it?FoS at the Octopus.
Zazier: Your posts have been quite interesting, and I agree with a majority of your commentary. Also, the point against Scien's comments on how something wasn't pointed out while being unable to give a reason that it deserved notification was a nice catch that I kind of skimmed over.
I did that specifically to piss you off. Not going to lie there...Nikanor wrote:So we agree that it is a nulltell, then.Wulfy wrote:Bullshit. Look at the track record and her standing. Clearly that was to force players off their guard by luring them into attacking her because she could easily defeat them in arguments, I'm sure. This would be an interesting move as either side which means it tells nothing of alignment but of her clever play style. And yes, you will read walls and analyze and play hardcore or you will get lost, lose interest, and replace out. Or be zwetschenwasser. Either way, you better be the first or this will be a long, tedious, and boring game.
People like you are the reason for the existence of text walls, Wulfy. You take four lines to say, 'Your reasoning's off, but I agree it's a nulltell. Oh, and I hope you don't replace out.' Do you ever wonder why people 'get lost, lose interest, and replace out'? It's because some people don't know the meaning of the word 'concise.'
Fuzzy, is this really the best you can do? A theoretical argument? *barks with encouragement to do more.*Fuzzyman wrote:Why does it seem that everybody is justifying everything with, "It doesn't matter since you were nowhere close to lynch"? A vote is a signifier of intent to lynch.*barks angrily!*Fuzzyman wrote:It's a valid question.farside22 wrote: Is this really all you have to add so far?Argument is invalid. How is working too hard scummy?YankCane151 wrote:Unvote, Vote: Farside
Working too hard over a simple arguement in the RVS.....Fuzzyman wrote:What would you have done in farside's shoes?
Bought a new pair, her shoes would probably be too big for me .__. ~ Hayl
*pissed and starts shaking fuzzyman back and forth inside my mouth.*
*GRR...*
How about a little commentary.*howls happily*Fuzzyman wrote:Where? Farside's vote? When I said the argument was a lot about nothing, I meant it referring to # of pages, words, etc., not the severity of the accusations, which was indeed little.ElectricBadger wrote: (Fuzzyman) Joins with Nik in blowing a vote out of proportionOnly so far as my post could be considered buddying with Nikanor. Having empathy isn't a plea for sympathy.playing up the victim cardI've not dismissed any shots at my inactivity. What are you talking about?excuses his own silence at the same timeI have no interest in this; I only want for it to be used wisely.attempts to stifle a townie's only weaponNo, I said that my principle dictated that one should only vote for those whom they would be comfortable lynching.and excuses mislynching on principle.
This is better.
Farside's criticism of the lurker lynching vote is supported, but I think both are correct. As votes are added to the wagon by EB's coercion of other people to join a lukrer wagon, Farside becomes more correct. At the moment, I think their play is equally helpful (with farside being a tad agressive and EB missing the point).hewitt wrote:Alright so first things first the argument between farside and Scien is not something I'm really paying all that much attention to because when an argument like this springs up so early in the game I feel like it's very likely it could just be a town vs. town argument. While I don't think either of them are overly pro-town I just don't think either side has enough merit to receive my support. I do dislike the voters on farside though, I think that's playing pretty damn opportunistically and they're just jumping for who they believe to be the easiest target.
1 - do you think I'm on a lurker wagon?Wulfy wrote:Farside's criticism of the lurker lynching vote is supported, but I think both are correct. As votes are added to the wagon by EB's coercion of other people to join a lukrer wagon, Farside becomes more correct. At the moment, I think their play is equally helpful (with farside being a tad agressive and EB missing the point).
What?Wulfy wrote:Something seems contradictory here.
There wasn't much to "read" in that post. All it said was:Wulfy wrote:*bites* You place me in a basket with someone I'm attacking? Did you even read my post or see the first line of my statement (involving dog acting) and just ignore it?FoS at the Octopus.
You wanna tell that doesn't look like a random vote? I'm not saying you're playing randomly right now. I'm just saying that that post was a random vote (or seemed very much like a random vote, seeing that it wasn't backed up by any argument, and there weren't any arguments on Maemuki for you to follow).Wulfy wrote:*barks*
Submited:Votes ugly bird Maemuki
They couldn't. Hence me not pursing either Wulfy or ODDin on the grounds that I thought it was scummy.ZazieR wrote:Questions:
-Why could one of the mentioned actions have scum motivations behind them? (Wulfy not confirming and ODDin not mentioning this when voting)
-You're saying here that you don't know if either means a thing. Yet in the case it could have meant something about the allignment, wouldn't it have been better to vote one of Wulfy or ODDin, instead of your random vote? If you agree, why didn't you do so?
[1] It's not really. I never really held that it was.ZazieR wrote:[On my initial comment] [1] So why is it odd to him then that nobody pointed it out?
[2] Secondly, saying the bolded. Then why point it out?
I disagree. You can fault me for one or the other but you can't fault me for both. You can't say "Hey, you didn't use your logic to push a strong case against them" and simultaniously say, "Hey, that logic is too weak to use in a case, so why did you bring it up." I can understand why people have griefs with either of them, but having griefs with both of them doesn't make sense. (Yes I know I am paraphrasing here, but that is what I was reading into as two parts of the case against me, weak points, and not using those weak points in an aggressive case)ZazieR wrote:No, what she's saying makes a lot of sense.
Future actions? Actions in the game later in the day... I assume you mean who would have been making them? Anyone. People attacking the point, people using the point, people mentioned in the point. They were going to give views based on the point, those views have motives. When you combine the reactions everyone is having now, with claimed views and actions they have later, you can look back and see things more clearly.ZazieR wrote:[C]an you elaborate on what you mean with 'future actions' in this case?
Also, from this post (Post 37), I get the impression you're suspicious of Farside. If this is true, why no vote?
First of all you are reading that out of context, I explicitly stated there that if we play this game of "what if I pushed that weak case", I would have voted one over it and the resulting case would been weak. My point is, that would have lead to an attack on me as well, for "Pushing a weak case as strong, and fabricating suspicion."ZazieR wrote:First of all, you're stating that you'd see whom of Wulfy and ODDin you'd have wanted to presure more. If you wanted to pressure one of them, why no vote? Secondly, it's noted that you thought that much about yourself.
As I have said before, I never really wondered if it was scummy, I never thought it was. I mentioned it just to see what others would say. I never treated that statement as an attack, and yes I understand that doesn't mean anything because I caught flack for it immediately. I would still challenge you to show me where I said that statement showed anyone was scummy.ZazieR wrote:I don't see why you wondered if confirming late could be scummy when you state here that you think it's a nulltell. Please explain this. This reinforces my earlier statement as well that you stated it was odd that it didn't get mentioned, while you state that it's a nulltell.
Also, can you link to your last scum game and your last town game?
~ Hayl