Open 177 (Monks and Masons) - Game Over.

[farside22]

I hope this is right Vote Count

Maemuki: Zazie, Wulfy
Hewitt: Scien, Yankcrane
Wulfy: YamiJoey
Scien: Farside22
Nikanor: ElectricBadger
YamiJoey: Nikanor
Farside22: ODDin

Not Voting: hewitt, Fuzzyman, Maemuki

With 12 alive it takes 7 to lynch. Deadline is 3 weeks from now. Tuesday 17th November, 9pm English time

Lots of love
Hayl xxx

MAEMUKI"
Not really. There are many people on the site, some play aggresively, others don't, right? It depends, so aggresiveness is a null-tell on my eyes. Why do you think that scum wouldn't be as aggresive as any other townie?

Honestly I haven't played as I said in a few months and the last time I played only a rare few could pull of being aggressive scum.
Being aggressive means attention and you have to have a point that is not wishy washy or meaningless or you back off then look scummy for backing off. It never works well for many I see who are scum.

zazie

:

Farside, what does the bolded in the quote from Scien say to you?

I wasn't talking about his first post Zazie. He didnt' bring up weak till after I did was what I was trying to say there. His first statement was why this.
I call it a null tell. He says later if it's a null tell why be aggressive.
Basically everything I said he says he meant later.

Oddin

Could well be read as: look how extremely and terribly aggressive I'm being right now. Ergo: I'm not scum.

I was asked from scien why I felt him not being aggressive was bad and I was answering the question. I get the impression reading your comments that you didn't read the exchange between us at all.

All in all. Call it tunnel vision but everything I said Scien said after the fact.
I called it a null tell that wulfy had not confirmed but Scien was the one to bring it up as a musing. Then backs off when questioned further on it. Then attacks me for questioning his lack of aggression.
Whether his point had merit or not I don't like people musing about something then RVS for no reason. He backtracked, attacked, then conceded and cowered. None of this rings for me any town readings.

[Nikanor]

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.

So we agree that it is a nulltell, then.
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.'

Uhm, what? Wulfy's vote against Maemuki put Maemuki at L-2.

No, EB unvoted Maemuki before Wulfy voted Maemuki. They both put her at L-3.

Nikanor was the first person on the list that hadn't yet posted (and the first one period) and I didn't see any other appealing wagon. So it was a little arbitrary (in selection) and a lot policy (as to why).

So being the only one to not post after six hours makes me a lurker, eh?
And what does me being the first on the list have to do with anything?

[ZazieR]

No, I never self-voted period before. I randomly felt like it. As for the reason, I wanted to make discussion. It worked, didn't it?

Well, we have discussion now. But most of it isn't caused by your selfvote or wagon. It barely brings any discussion and a selfvote is most of the time a distraction.

[farside22]

No, I never self-voted period before. I randomly felt like it. As for the reason, I wanted to make discussion. It worked, didn't it?

Well, we have discussion now. But most of it isn't caused by your selfvote or wagon. It barely brings any discussion and a selfvote is most of the time a distraction.

My problem with self votes is in large part do to Nat. He always self voted to prove it was a null tell and others started fallowing the trend to the point it wasn't a discussion starter any more just as zazie said a distraction.

[ZazieR]

Uhm, what? Wulfy's vote against Maemuki put Maemuki at L-2.

No, EB unvoted Maemuki before Wulfy voted Maemuki. They both put her at L-3.

Than Yami indeed needs to explain why he only called Wulfy out, but not EB.

[Maemuki]

@ Zazie, I know, it was still worth a try.

[ZazieR]

So my problems with

ODDin

's post:

She's also getting "royally pissed" over this, and I'm not sure why that is. I mean, really, headdesk over that?

The statement of being "royally pissed" was used to describe something else, namely the back and forth between Farside and Scien. Because what they are discussing the whole time is basically the same thing.
As for the head desk, do you disagree that when somebody points out something he sees as a possible lead, but doesn't persue it, deserves a head desk or something like that or not?

It's also giving me a tunneling vibe. She's practically disregarded all other players during that exchange.

Not liking this. There's barely any discussion besides the arguments between Scien and Farside. Heck, even you (ODDin) mentioned one thing besides this discussion.
Add that Farside has mentioned mainly this, but not only this.

Last is ODDin twisting Farside's argument here:
Why would she do that? I have an idea:

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.

Could well be read as: look how extremely and terribly aggressive I'm being right now. Ergo: I'm not scum.

[ZazieR]

So my problems with

ODDin

's post:

She's also getting "royally pissed" over this, and I'm not sure why that is. I mean, really, headdesk over that?

The statement of being "royally pissed" was used to describe something else, namely the back and forth between Farside and Scien. Because what they are discussing the whole time is basically the same thing.
As for the head desk, do you disagree that when somebody points out something he sees as a possible lead, but doesn't persue it, deserves a head desk or something like that or not?

It's also giving me a tunneling vibe. She's practically disregarded all other players during that exchange.

Not liking this. There's barely any discussion besides the arguments between Scien and Farside. Heck, even you (ODDin) mentioned one thing besides this discussion.
Add that Farside has mentioned mainly this, but not only this.

Last is ODDin twisting Farside's argument here:

Why would she do that? I have an idea:

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.

Could well be read as: look how extremely and terribly aggressive I'm being right now. Ergo: I'm not scum.

(EBWOP I added quote tags in the last paragraph to make it clear what ODDin said)

[farside22]

The head desk was actually because of YJ and Maemuki exchange. It made me want to cry. Also note I'm very sarcastic person and it's just my nature to be sarcastic.

@zazie: I may be tunnel visioned. I always feel I could be but most of the talk was just me and scien going back and forth anyways with little said from anyone else on the matter.

[ElectricBadger]

So being the only one to not post after six hours makes me a lurker, eh?
And what does me being the first on the list have to do with anything?

I believe my reasoning was clear and verifiable: "for not posting yet." Don't put words in my mouth: I didn't call you a lurker, I worked proactively to ensure you wouldn't become one. As I recently told Scien, it's better to vote for a weak reason than nothing at all. Of course I wouldn't lynch you for taking 6 hours to post; but a lone vote hardly put you in any danger of that. It did, however, give you something solid to respond to in your first post and maybe made you a little nervous if you were intentionally waiting - way more productive than voting for my favorite avatar or some such nonsense.

On the list of players, you're at the top. Thus, when I read down them to check which players were listed there but not in the Iso menu, you were the first I checked and hadn't posted, so you got my vote rather than anyone else in the same situation.

Calling his Nik vote a policy vote based upon him not having posted yet, while the game started the same day as his vote was made. I also don't trust policy lynches.

One vote isn't a policy lynch; and I haven't even approached such a situation, so I really can't say whether I'd kill for it. Right now I'd simply say that I've become more dedicated to pressuring lurkers into speaking or being replaced. Again, from my last game regarding Vaya-scum, right before I placed the losing vote:

Either way this works out, I think the Vaya situation indicates a need to out lurkers better in the future, but other than his play yesterday there's no particular evidence.

Not having evidence cost the game. I don't want that to happen again. Do either of you feel that's a scum tell?

[farside22]

Well, your assurance is good enough for me.

Unvote Maemuki, Vote Nikanor

for not posting yet.
.

I really think talking about those who haven't posted on day 1 is a bit much but that was not the case here. Nik had posted and recently.
I'm not sure if you were giving less pressure off Maemuki or why. This vote at this time makes no sense.
Did nik talk before or after this vote?
I have to recheck who said what at what time I'm a bit busy to get to it right now.

In my last game town lost to a trio of lurker-scum. Another game we were both involved in is now over 5 months long because of lurkers and inactives. So I'm getting kind of touchy about the subject and starting to lean towards the Lynch All Lurkers mentality.

This is understandable especially as I can point to numerous games were scum lurked FTW but this early once again and voting on someone who did post that day again it makes no sense.
Why push for a lurkers right now out of curiousity? Do you not have a say about others in the game and comments made so far? Is so what are they?

[ElectricBadger]

I really think talking about those who haven't posted on day 1 is a bit much but that was not the case here. Nik had posted and recently.
I'm not sure if you were giving less pressure off Maemuki or why. This vote at this time makes no sense.

Not sure what you're saying here. Could you rephrase?

Why push for a lurkers right now out of curiousity? Do you not have a say about others in the game and comments made so far? Is so what are they?

I have had things to say - Iso me? And my vote now has nothing to do with not posting - it's due to Nik's first post, as I mentioned in response.

[Fuzzyman]

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.

[farside22]

I really think talking about those who haven't posted on day 1 is a bit much but that was not the case here. Nik had posted and recently.
I'm not sure if you were giving less pressure off Maemuki or why. This vote at this time makes no sense.

Not sure what you're saying here. Could you rephrase?

Why push for a lurkers right now out of curiousity? Do you not have a say about others in the game and comments made so far? Is so what are they?

I have had things to say - Iso me? And my vote now has nothing to do with not posting - it's due to Nik's first post, as I mentioned in response.

first comment: Basically it's day 1. Not many talked so far. You had a RVS vote but change to a vote on someone who had not said a word that day.
I do not understand why you would change from a RVS to a non talker so early in the game.

Second: I can see why nik's comments bother you now.

[Nikanor]

I believe my reasoning was clear and verifiable: "for not posting yet." Don't put words in my mouth: I didn't call you a lurker, I worked proactively to ensure you wouldn't become one. As I recently told Scien, it's better to vote for a weak reason than nothing at all. Of course I wouldn't lynch you for taking 6 hours to post; but a lone vote hardly put you in any danger of that. It did, however, give you something solid to respond to in your first post and maybe made you a little nervous if you were intentionally waiting - way more productive than voting for my favorite avatar or some such nonsense.

I'm not putting words in your mouth, it was implied that you had called me a lurker.
You said your vote was mostly policy. You said that losing to lurkerscum has caused you to develop a new policy, i.e. paying more attention to lurkers. Therefore, you indirectly called me a lurker.
Saying that I am misinterpreting your words is fine. Accusing me of misrepresenting you when I am not is not fine.
I think you're attempting to undermine my opinion via an over-aggressive accusation of misrepresentation. Am I right?

[farside22]

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.

Is this really all you have to add so far?

[ODDin]

I was asked from scien why I felt him not being aggressive was bad and I was answering the question. I get the impression reading your comments that you didn't read the exchange between us at all.

I have read the exchange well enough, thank you, and yes, I know this comment was triggered by you answering a question. However, it feels to me you used it to say "look here, look here, I'm not scum." It's a gut feeling, I feel like you, umm, "overexplained" with this post.

The statement of being "royally pissed" was used to describe something else, namely the back and forth between Farside and Scien. Because what they are discussing the whole time is basically the same thing.
As for the head desk, do you disagree that when somebody points out something he sees as a possible lead, but doesn't persue it, deserves a head desk or something like that or not?

Not really, no. It's something to note, it may even be something to vote over to start discussion early in the day. It's not something to be annoyed over so much. farside seems overly emotional over this. Reading over the whole exchange makes me wanna go "jeez, come down..."

Not liking this. There's barely any discussion besides the arguments between Scien and Farside. Heck, even you (ODDin) mentioned one thing besides this discussion.

That's why I said "tunneling vibe". It's not strictly tunneling at this point, due to the lack of much else to talk about.

Also, I don't think my quote of farside is twisting her words. All I said is what I felt when I read that (yes, I felt that even though knew it technically came as a reply to a question on the subject). That's what I felt, so I wanted to let the town know I feel that. I'm not saying I'm certain this is the case, but people need to be aware that that post by farside might have had an ulterior motive, so to speak.

[Fuzzyman]

Is this really all you have to add so far?

It's a valid question.

[ElectricBadger]

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.

Are you saying we shouldn't vote at all until we're positive who is scum? What's your opinion on the use of a vote for pressure?

What's your take on Nikanor? Farside? Scien?

I see you posted several times elsewhere yesterday. Why not here?

first comment: Basically it's day 1. Not many talked so far. You had a RVS vote but change to a vote on someone who had not said a word that day.
I do not understand why you would change from a RVS to a non talker so early in the game.

Isn't this - voting for a weak reason rather than a random one - exactly what you've been attacking Scien for NOT doing?

I've mentioned my reasons for the switch, but to specify even more:

Of course not. They'll just give you very high levels of sugar. Mmm sugar.

*gives cookie*

...doesn't feel like my vote is generating pressure and conversation likely to help find scum. Why WOULD I keep my vote there?

[Fuzzyman]

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.

[farside22]

first comment: Basically it's day 1. Not many talked so far. You had a RVS vote but change to a vote on someone who had not said a word that day.
I do not understand why you would change from a RVS to a non talker so early in the game.

Isn't this - voting for a weak reason rather than a random one - exactly what you've been attacking Scien for NOT doing?

I hate people that avoid questions like this.
First my question is valid. As you explained to zazie you went down the list and nik was the first person not to say a word but again it's day 1 we just started and you switched from RVS to sort of random with a reason. Now you have a reason but I want to know why not wait to vote if your intent is more to focus on the quiet at first then do a RVS to a semi random vote in one day.

[ElectricBadger]

It's not something to be annoyed over so much. farside seems overly emotional over this. Reading over the whole exchange makes me wanna go "jeez, come down..."

I agreed with this at first - farside is too experienced to be so stressed by a minor issue on the first day. However, some background research revealed a rather...frustrating-ish...argument with some...interesting fellows...in the Open Queue, where she mods (it's removed now). I'm forming doubts about farside, but I'm inclined to dismiss this particular tell.

I think you're attempting to undermine my opinion via an over-aggressive accusation of misrepresentation. Am I right?

Curiously, I'm thinking the same thing about you - you've completely ignored my reason for voting for you and request for an explanation, and instead blown a barely-not-random vote wildly out of proportion to derail the conversation.

[farside22]

I was asked from scien why I felt him not being aggressive was bad and I was answering the question. I get the impression reading your comments that you didn't read the exchange between us at all.

I have read the exchange well enough, thank you, and yes, I know this comment was triggered by you answering a question. However, it feels to me you used it to say "look here, look here, I'm not scum." It's a gut feeling, I feel like you, umm, "overexplained" with this post.

Yet the only reason for you vote is because I was explaining why I don't like scein's lack of agression and I'm defending my statement that you pointed out because you seemed focas on something that was an explaination to another player and not a hey look I'm agressive so I must not be scum as you so put it and yes that is twisting someone's words.

[/quote]

[farside22]

It's not something to be annoyed over so much. farside seems overly emotional over this. Reading over the whole exchange makes me wanna go "jeez, come down..."

First of all I hate rehashing the same thing over and over again. I don't like repeating myself. It's a personal annoyance. Second if anyone reads my past games I'm emotional. It's a null tell but it's a fact.

Am I the only one noticing Oddin pointing out my flaws and reaction but neglecting to mention scien at all and his reactions to being called out?
Or the fact that Oddi pointed to an explaination and seems to twist it into something insubstantial that is pure conjection and not fact based?
Zazie so far is the only one to point out that his statement about my comment, although not something I said, can be looked at either way.

[ElectricBadger]

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?

why not wait to vote if your intent is more to focus on the quiet at first then do a RVS to a semi random vote in one day.

Not voting wouldn't have done anything to spur conversation. As I mentioned,

It did, however, give you [Nikanor] something solid to respond to in your first post and maybe made you a little nervous if you were intentionally waiting

Maybe it would help if you explained to me why not voting, or voting randomly, would have helped town? Because I don't see a reason it would, and therefore I think you're attacking me for acting pro-town.