No. I wasn't originally on you. As stated, I produced the PBPA to move you off the neutral list. And then other priorities took hold.
As you also stated my bump off the neutral list landed me on your "leaning scum" list. I fail to see how "other priorities" should ever be a reason not to pursue players that one deems scummy.
As you also stated my bump off the neutral list landed me on your "leaning scum" list. I fail to see how "other priorities" should ever be a reason not to pursue players that one deems scummy.
There were some parts of Xyre's response I thought were totally reasonable; there were some parts where I felt he was dodging valid points. It was dissappointing to see the entire response summarily ignored.
Azrael has made some good points, but not all his points are good. The 'concerned about image' tell, I feel, is very unreliable. I agree with the underlying theory, but in practice I've only ever seen it used before by DYH as part of bussing his own mafia buddies.
It's the rest of Azrael's case that interests me. Can you please respond to these items?:
In case you didn't notice, I still have two of those players on my list right now. If my intent was merely to pick low-hanging fruit, would I be standing by that first judgment? Do you think I just lucked into those players not acquitting themselves, or could it be that I genuinely thought and think they are/were scum?
I completely disagree. I think the PBPAs have all been on original points or have developed pre-existing hypotheses in new ways. Skander, Kraj, Phantom, and WoD. The former two developed and expanded on criticisms of them, and the latter two I feel were new. You haven't supported this point.
@Xyre: You seem to be indirectly pointing out a variety of things in Azrael's case as being scummy, i.e., claiming a lot of misrepresentation, twisting of words, ignoring contrary evidence, etc. But you haven't outright said you feel Azrael's attack on you is scummy. Why not?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
Wonderful example of pro-town A --> B --> C --> = scum deductive reasoning here.
Compare to his Janus posts, where he simply lists information, dithers on it, and fails to draw any persuasive conclusions.
<comment removed due to Kraj's question>
Quote from Azrael »
No qualifiers here. Good, confident use of absolute statements and descriptions. He's confident in his reads and ideas, his language reflects that, and you can tell he's going to fight hard for that read, despite the mounting pressure and criticism against him amongst the town.
Agreed, this appears to be different than what we've seen from Xyre this game.
Quote from Azrael »
Here's one of his apology posts for incomplete research, but note the complete 180 difference on the tone between his "Sorry." post here in Janus, and the post from Gambino. 'Before the catcalls start': that's straight from the heart. And he promises to come back and post without fear or qualifiers.
This is not the same Xyre.
Meh, I'm not sold on the language tells here.
EWP: Excellent question from Kraj. I've removed my comment to the first quote to see Xyre's response.
@Xyre: You seem to be indirectly pointing out a variety of things in Azrael's case as being scummy, i.e., claiming a lot of misrepresentation, twisting of words, ignoring contrary evidence, etc. But you haven't outright said you feel Azrael's attack on you is scummy. Why not?
Because I can't shake the sensation that a scum Az wouldn't play like this. It's the standard scum-tells-in-a-vacuum-versus-scum-tells-respective-to-that-player debacle. I'll refer you to this on how I feel about Az:
Y'know, I hate drawing OMGUS fire, but this train has really frustrated me. I know you're a better analyst than to be making trite points and avoiding repeated requests for a simple case (which could probably be cranked out in 5-10 minutes, or the time required for maybe two of these endless legalese-drenched posts). Which makes me wonder why you want this lynch to go down so badly (as inferred from the above chat about "conclusions before conclusion") as to kick logic and concentrate on credibility. You're in the driver seat, and you know it - this is your interrogation, and the other players are following your tune - even going so far as to make votes like Skander's above (which, while not detracting from my town tell of him, smells strongly of a townie following the suspected path of progress). There isn't much analysis anymore, or at least, not as much coming from the town. And that's not what I'm used to seeing from you at all. I know you're a strong analyst, so why are you suddenly eschewing it for your one-liners? I've seen you make very strong PBPAs before, so why are you kicking the PBPA?
I can't shake that nagging voice in the back of my head that says "Az is playing the townies like a fiddle". It's not completely incredible - this is a style Cyan is quite good at. He has a reputation for posting a great deal and churning out large amounts of content both as town and scum (see the original Star Trek Mafia for a good example of the latter, where he used a weak investigation role and heavy posting to make it to the end as scum and wamboozle the town, myself included). I haven't seen Az use this before, though - he always seems more quiet and thoughtful as scum, and I've seen him use this style before as town - but it isn't completely impossible. And I've been considering my top three scum - Toast, Net, and PS - and they seem like a rather motley bunch. Most of the tells on them, while not unreasonable (especially on the first two) don't seem the kind of open-and-shut case I like from scum analysis. And my number 4, AH, doesn't really fit the part, either. Which gets me wondering whether Az is scum.
I look at it this way: CM/andelijah, kpaca*, Kraj, WoD, Chris/DYH, and Skander are town/leaning town. AH is the wild card, but I have nothing strong either way and he's a traditional lurker. PhantomS is weakly scum, and I think Toast and Net are pretty strong in that category. Which leaves, what? Az, AH, or PS? I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised. The Az case on Toastboy early on is something I'm hung up on, though (a perfect example of what I'm asking from him). He was the first person to call anything on Toastboy, and with gusto, no less. I don't see Az as the kind to pull quite a gambit like that, though I can see how he might temper it just enough to push it.
But then I start falling into the same holes I argued WoD had fallen into - paranoia, brief argumentation, and so forth. It's the same manic style I've criticized Az for having. I don't feel like I have a strong grip on this game at all. But I can't shake the sensation.
I still need to process Netfinity and Toastboy before I consider this case in greater depth, and it's hard to focus on those while I'm trying to slog through this discussion. But I'll get started on them right now.
@Xyre: You seem to be indirectly pointing out a variety of things in Azrael's case as being scummy, i.e., claiming a lot of misrepresentation, twisting of words, ignoring contrary evidence, etc. But you haven't outright said you feel Azrael's attack on you is scummy. Why not?
You guys really aren't reading his posts, are you?
Initially, the tone is noticably different - he seems more playful, but the net result ends up being the same.
*shakes head* His tone has been off since the start of the game though, since before I ever started attacking him. Plus, I don't think Xyre's the type to be intimidated as a town because the AZRAEL MONSTER RAWWWWWR is coming to get him.
Since Kraj wants some bedside reading to drift off to sleep to...
It's not only newbs that get nervous about readjusting to mafia play. And there's a difference between the way townies DATBF, and mafia. My point is precisely that your DATBF stuck out like a sore thumb compared to everyone else's, this game.
Quote from Xyre »
"awkward and strange"
My problem is that the tell didn't apply to these circumstances, for reasons I explained at the time of your post. If it had, be my guest.
Quote from Xyre »
In case you didn't notice, I still have two of those players on my list right now. If my intent was merely to pick low-hanging fruit, would I be standing by that first judgment?
Sure, if you still want to knock them off. That doesn't seem like much of a stretch.
Quote from Xyre »
I don't understand this. "Guaranteed scum" was a bit colloquial, to be sure, but the important part of that sentence was the subsequent part. The top 3 scum list was provisional by nature; his position on there was indicative of my doubts, not my certainty. "Not guaranteed" was intended to reflect that uncertainty, but I can understand how the strong term of a guarantee might unbalance that.
Your uncertainty is the problem. You're expressing uncertainty on one hand, and laying into him with the other. It's an unnatural coupling, for the purpose of portraying yourself as a moderate while continuing to apply pressure.
Quote from xyre »
You're right, but you're talking about the posts mentioned in the quoted post, not the quoted post itself - I assumed, not assumes.
Nope, the post itself.
:pwned button:
Quote from Xyre »
I don't see the choppy wording. The "at the latest" referred to the fact that I might not post due to my prior engagement. And it's worth noting here that I jumped in on the Kraj issue after the wagon had already collapsed under its own weight; therefore, I wasn't waiting for a bandwagon to follow.
Excessive periods, incomplete sentences. It's choppy, as though you're struggling to piece together an adequate excuse post.
Quote from Xyre »
What's wrong with that argument?
It allows plenty of room for disbelief.
Quote from Xyre »
I completely disagree. I think the PBPAs have all been on original points or have developed pre-existing hypotheses in new ways. Skander, Kraj, Phantom, and WoD. The former two developed and expanded on criticisms of them, and the latter two I feel were new. You haven't supported this point.
I believe that's totally incorrect. The buddying point you brought up against Phantom was old news. The PBPA on WoD came after players had attacked him for an unexplained vote. The Kraj attack was all about old ground.
Only the Skander PBPA came close to an original thought, but it was so twisted beyond belief that I'm not sure you were genuinely thinking at all when you wrote it.
Quote from Xyre »
YOU DIDN'T ASK ME A QUESTION!
Meet the substance. You did not address my concerns.
Quote from Xyre »
Bottom line to me is that it seems Azrael wants me to be scum to back up some hypothesis - his original guess?
I think I missed that. I seem to recall pages on pages of you defending yourself. Players you deemed scummier would be a solid excuse, but I saw no such pursuit.
I think I missed that. I seem to recall pages on pages of you defending yourself. Players you deemed scummier would be a solid excuse, but I saw no such pursuit.
As previously stated, defending myself keeps me busy.
But, as promised, here's a few notes on Netfinity. Considering how much people tl;dred my previous posts, this one is greatly condensed.
Everything that can be said about Net's second post, the vote on Chris with a pretty terrible rationale, has been said. His next few posts are about same.
I won't be able to post on the 1st through 6th. Sorry about the absence.
Since when is the second vote bandwagoning? It seems to me as if you're unnecessarily defending him.
This is rather conspicuous, considering he made the second vote on Chris for a bad reason. Since he then turns around and indirectly attacks WoD, I think he either doesn't understand irony or is consciously taking a double-standard.
Then we get his response to Az's case on Toast (linking to it because he puts text into the quote, which is a pain). Seeing as Net hasn't interacted with Toast at all to this point (almost all his posts were related to Chris), this post is out-of-place - especially because one of Toast's random throwaway comments was "At the moment I find Netfinity most suspicious, but that's not saying much." More hits from this post:
As for Skander's point, I'll wait for Toastboy to respond.
This goes without saying. If Net's point was to merely dismantle a bad case, he wouldn't have mentioned Skander's post, and allowing another player to respond to arguments against himself is a given. So why would he mention this, unless he deliberately intervened in attacks on Toast? This is the kind of post that makes me think they're possible scum-buddies.
Then we have a series of points on the Kraj event, mostly pertaining to Chris. His arguments here are weak.
Then we have this (from this post), another example of ironic logic:
Azrael, as I've read in other games as well, has a tendency to wait and evaluate players based on reactions. But he didn't do so when Xyre attacked Skander. He responded to the attack before Skander had anything to say for himself (and later Skander seemed to be hiding behind that defense). By doing this, he implicitly assumes Skander's towniness and is not actually interested in reading him as it seems he wants us to think.
He did a similar thing for Toastboy (except in the opposite order). The implication of that post, and in particular the "I'll wait for T to respond to S" comment, is the same as the above: he implicitly assumes Toastboy's towniness. And, again, I don't know why he'd think this considering their lack of prior interactions.
Onto his next post. Despite attacking Az's case on Kraj vigorously in the last post, here he folds with minimal effort, providing no substantive responses to Az's responses. What baffles me about this post, though, is his repeated reference to Skander, who didn't warrant a mention in his top three scum list and indeed hadn't been mentioned by Net since his second post. The case here feels disingenous, peppered with qualifications and approached in a very inactive manner. This feels like a classic example of a ghost-case, and its presence in the post addressing Az feels like a way to disguise his backing away from the Az case.
Summary: Most of his posts are throwaway comments. The two posts that have truly substantive content are redundant and potentially defenses of a scumbuddy (the Toastboy post) or are immediately withdrawn and replaced with a case that is never mentioned again (the Skander post). I feel confident with a Vote Netfinity
It's not only newbs that get nervous about readjusting to mafia play. And there's a difference between the way townies DATBF, and mafia. My point is precisely that your DATBF stuck out like a sore thumb compared to everyone else's, this game.
I will admit there was more of it than there needed to be. But I still disagree about my first post.
My problem is that the tell didn't apply to these circumstances, for reasons I explained at the time of your post. If it had, be my guest.
I felt it did and argued such. And I stand by that, even though I recognize there are rhetorical differences between individuals (something you should also recognize).
Sure, if you still want to knock them off. That doesn't seem like much of a stretch.
When do scum ever hang on the same target for an entire day? If the theory that scum want to seize opportunities, waiting for something to fall into their lap isn't a sound strategy. This is the reason why scum bandwagon and back off more frequently from lost wagons (in theory, of course).
Your uncertainty is the problem. You're expressing uncertainty on one hand, and laying into him with the other. It's an unnatural coupling, for the purpose of portraying yourself as a moderate while continuing to apply pressure.
I'm laying into him as I'd lay into any scum suspect (though "laying into him" is a poor choice of phrase to describe such); but there's a difference between how I'd approach a provisional and a rather certain scum suspect. It isn't unnatural inasmuch as the attack is tempered by uncertainty from the start.
Nope, the post itself.
:pwned button:
Excessive periods, incomplete sentences. It's choppy, as though you're struggling to piece together an adequate excuse post.
That doesn't make sense. "Sorry" is a colloquial abbreviation of the grammatically correct phrase "I'm sorry". And there's nothing choppy about the first part, which I assume you're referring to (as there's nothing in that in the second part).
It allows plenty of room for disbelief.
Hmm? You think I developed a dense argument knowing full well that I could back away... from a misunderstanding? I can think of several better ways I could have approached that as scum that wouldn't have created the "I made a mistake" gap.
I believe that's totally incorrect. The buddying point you brought up against Phantom was old news. The PBPA on WoD came after players had attacked him for an unexplained vote. The Kraj attack was all about old ground.
The first and third were not just about that "old" material, though the third did ultimately hinge on that. The second assumes I developed a massive post just to bandwagon, which is silly. If I just wanted to jump on his wagon, I could have done so with a fraction of the information. Unless you think I developed all those reasons to disguise my bandwagoning, which again seems like more trouble than it's worth, especially considering how it blew up in my face.
Bottom line is you seem to equate long with "he's probably hiding something", where if you thought about the posts and their progressions for a few moments you'd realize they serve no strategic purpose for a scum that isn't dumber than a chimp.
Only the Skander PBPA came close to an original thought, but it was so twisted beyond belief that I'm not sure you were genuinely thinking at all when you wrote it.
Charming.
When all else fails, attack credibility?
Man, I wish there was a smilie for the owl ORLY macro. That would save me a lot of time.
We'll deal with your scum-buddy after you're dead. But I do agree with you.
Quote from Toastboy »
I'm confident with my vote on Xyre: his responses have become increasingly deploring and depressed rather than the anger he was displaying earlier. If the questioning is long enough the results are always the same: the innocent are angry, the guilty are forlorn.
There is some truth to this.
I do not endorse the Toast-wagon.
*braces for Axelrod, Rafk, or Arim to replace in next*
Either Toastboy didn't fully understood my tone shift accusation, or was intentionally evading it. His response seems to be more of an excuse for lurking and scummy play (and now replacing out) rather than a discussion around how his mood changed from exactly what he just said was a guilty tell (deploring and depressed) once he was off the hotseat.
I'm going with the latter because I think I was pretty clear, and because he's scum.
Xyre's response to Az's "when all else fails, attack credibility" is not what I was expecting to see there. I agree with his thoughts around Netfinity, though. Oddly, I had commented that Netfinity seemed to be sucking up to Azrael, several of his posts contain "I agree with Az", but I realize now he's voting him? I missed something here.
More content from my third suspect would be nice, too. "Die from excessive text" might be what we're all feeling, but there has to be something more you can add.
I will admit there was more of it than there needed to be. But I still disagree about my first post.
I felt it did and argued such. And I stand by that, even though I recognize there are rhetorical differences between individuals (something you should also recognize).
When do scum ever hang on the same target for an entire day? If the theory that scum want to seize opportunities, waiting for something to fall into their lap isn't a sound strategy. This is the reason why scum bandwagon and back off more frequently from lost wagons (in theory, of course).
I'm laying into him as I'd lay into any scum suspect (though "laying into him" is a poor choice of phrase to describe such); but there's a difference between how I'd approach a provisional and a rather certain scum suspect. It isn't unnatural inasmuch as the attack is tempered by uncertainty from the start.
Yes; I played with him in Unreal City and correctly identified him as town there. He came under fire during day one of that game, too, and this doesn't come across the same way as I remember there.
MTGS stats (won/played)
As scum - 3/5
As town - 5/7
As neutral - none
(I really have been scum a lot)
I'm now writing for Eye of the Vortex, come check out MTG articles and other geek culture
I also moderate the MTG forum, so register (it's free) and voice your thoughts.
MTGS stats (won/played)
As scum - 3/5
As town - 5/7
As neutral - none
(I really have been scum a lot)
I'm now writing for Eye of the Vortex, come check out MTG articles and other geek culture
I also moderate the MTG forum, so register (it's free) and voice your thoughts.
Ande is town since Charm was. A scum Charm doesn't vote then unvote in an EDWOP.
Kpain is town. This is important if I'm correct about the setup.
WoD is probably town. He immediately counterclaims kpaca.
Kraj is probably town.
Az is probably town.
I have initial good feelings from DYH. (Chris was in the middle for me, so my DYH read takes precedence).
Most everyone else is somewhere in the middle. Netfinity is my only strong scum read. I need to read him in isolation and be certain, though.
Xyre could be scum. (Setup and some of his arguments give me the impression he's arguing from a position of weakness).
Setup impressions:
With two mason pairs claimed and neither mod-confirmed (pretty sure that's what WoD meant when he said he could "somewhat vouch" for PhantomS), I would be surprised if there isn't one scum hiding amongst the four players. Possible that there could be more than one (one in each pair), but that seems a little unfair to the scum team if true.
So that would mean Xyre and PhantomS merit attention based on setup.
I need to read Netfinity and PhantomS in isolation. Xyre I need to look over specific sections again when I'm not reading at "catch up" speed. Holding vote for now, but expect my vote to be on one of those three along with further thoughts on the other two.
Maybe. On re-read my Netfinity read is moving from "strong" to "moderate". I have stuff for him, but I want to complete my read of PhantomS and Xyre first and get it all out there at the same time. I should be able to get to PhantomS after work tomorrow, and Xyre following that.
*nods* And we have an uncommon number of analysts replacing in. That should help too.
Heh. And it kind of fits the theme of the game, doesn't it?
You're fishing from the mod? Bold, my friend, bold.
I understand that we have a lot of replacements, so people need a fair amount of time to catch up, but posting and content need to pick up, from almost everyone. We're nearing the month mark, and I'm going to throw down a deadline if the discussion doesn't start moving.
MTGS stats (won/played)
As scum - 3/5
As town - 5/7
As neutral - none
(I really have been scum a lot)
I'm now writing for Eye of the Vortex, come check out MTG articles and other geek culture
I also moderate the MTG forum, so register (it's free) and voice your thoughts.
MTGS stats (won/played)
As scum - 3/5
As town - 5/7
As neutral - none
(I really have been scum a lot)
I'm now writing for Eye of the Vortex, come check out MTG articles and other geek culture
I also moderate the MTG forum, so register (it's free) and voice your thoughts.
Haven't seen much to change my reads. Points against Phantom aren't particularly convincing, especially not compared to the fairly strong town read I have from his reaction to my vote.
Haven't a clue why everyone keeps saying kpaca is town.
Still hate Charms play. Covenient he replaces out while digging himself a hole. I look forward to ande's more developed thoughts.
WoD's analysis is odd; basically reading every action as intended to do the opposite as it normally would. Not sold on him being scum.
Netfinity is an enigma. I'm not fond of his weak attack on Azreal, but I have a hard timing believing scum would see Azrael as the weak member of the pack. Weird.
Kinda wondering why Az is moving his vote around if he's so certain Xyre is scum and atleast some people agree.
Only solid read here is Phantom = town.
kpaca = scum, maybe, but he doesn't appear eager to convince everyone else, and he's giving this read through the negative (wants other people to prove kpaca is town for him, rather than him prove kpaca is scum). Note, he also does that here.
Doesn't like Charm Master's play - but that is unspecific in terms of alignment (and in some cases, in terms of which game as well). The "digging a hole" comment means scum? but he doesn't really go out of his way to prove that assertion.
Wrath of Dog is odd, and Netfinity is confusing and weird. Again, no tell on alignment.
And the Azrael point lacks a conclusion either way as well, although I would say it is a somewhat leading observation.
Despite being a post with reads on several other players, I would say there are, at most, 3 reads, and even those aren't presented with any sort of belief behind them.
I've repeatedly explained how scummy I thought Charm Master was and why. After reading the game, rereading me, and rereading my other games, the best andelijah has got is an attack full of lousy points.
After reading a couple games, I'm sticking to my vote. Kraj:
[list]
[*][url=http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=4123239#post4123239]Makes points that he seems to have no intention on following up on[/url], [url=http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=4142413#post4142413]twice[/url].
The points I made in both those posts were answered. Interesting that you claim to know my intentions, though.
[*][url=http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=4127138#post4127138]Doesn't really explain or push his suspects, insults other players,[/url]
Gee, there hasn't been any discussion about this has there? "Insults other players" is a worthless point that doesn't nothing except colour me as a villain.
and [url=http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=4127765#post4127765]doesn't seem to be taking anything seriously[/url].
A.) What makes you think that post wasn't serious? B.) So what? Where, exactly, is the scum tell in whether a player is acting seriously? This is a [I]game[/I], you know.
[*][url=http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=4138988#post4138988]Seems to suspect a majority of the player base[/url].
Because... I mentioned three players I found suspicious? This point is so bogus. You're exaggerating and ignoring the stances I've taken recently in favor of focusing on early reads.
In fact, pretty much every point you have is based on my earliest posts and ignores all my other posts that are relevant to your points. For example...
kpaca = scum, maybe, but he doesn't appear eager to convince everyone else, and he's giving this read through the negative (wants other people to prove kpaca is town for him, rather than him prove kpaca is scum).
Bullcrap. I gave reasons for my suspicion of kpaca [URL="http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=4138261&postcount=155"]here[/URL], long before my post which you quoted, [I]AND[/I] also in a subsequent post which is quoted and linked in the same damn post you just linked to:
Note, he also does that [url=http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=4148792#post4148792]here[/url].
If you're town you're being sloppy as hell; I think you're looking to justify a vote on an easy target. None of your reasons hold up and I'm fairly confident a townie who actually read my posts trying to make up his mind about me would not have made the case you just made.
Doesn't like Charm Master's play - but that is unspecific in terms of alignment (and in some cases, in terms of which game as well). The "digging a hole" comment means scum? but he doesn't really go out of his way to prove that assertion.
And if you actually read my posts you would have seen the explanations I gave for thinking Charm Master is scum [URL="http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=4143834&highlight=charm#post4143834"]here[/URL] and [URL="http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=4145769&highlight=charm#post4145769"]here[/URL].
Wrath of Dog is odd, and Netfinity is confusing and weird. Again, no tell on alignment.
So when I said I'm not sold on WoD being scum, that's not a read on alignment? OK, sure, it's not a 100% solid stance, but considering there was a case and wagon growing on him, saying I don't agree is pretty relevant. The only real fence sitting I did in this post was on Netfinity.
Despite being a post with reads on several other players, I would say there are, at most, 3 reads, and even those aren't presented with any sort of belief behind them.
That would be because nothing changed between that post and the other posts where I [I]did[/I] explain my reasons.
This case is just utter crap. It lacks any research into whether its conclusions are accurate, it's just a bunch of points that have either already been argued against by me or make no sense if you look at my other posts. There is no ring of sincerity here, nothing I can point to and say "that's fair".
Charm Master voted Skander and then me for fast wagoning Toastboy while completely avoiding making his own opinion on Toastboy. He repeatedly argued that Toastboy was in danger of getting speedlynched, which is complete b.s., and then took credit for preventing that from happening. He posts infrequently and lacks solid content. Charm starts showing up on people's suspect lists: mine, [URL="http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=4147248&postcount=203"]Xyre's[/URL], [URL="http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=4147416&postcount=204"]Skander's[/URL], [URL="http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=4149499&postcount=213"]Chris's[/URL], [URL="http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=4152370&postcount=224"]Netfinity's[/URL], [URL="http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=4152499&postcount=226"]AH's[/URL] (sort of), and whoops! He replaces out. Granted that's not really a valid point against him, but it certainly does seem damn convenient. andelijah comes in, has almost nothing to say other than he's reading lots of stuff and he thinks I'm scum, and then posts this terrible case. And it's not just a terrible case, it's a scummy case. This is completely different in every describable way from how either Azrael or Xyre cased me.
List tags are malformed.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
Gee, there hasn't been any discussion about this has there? "Insults other players" is a worthless point that doesn't nothing except colour me as a villain.
Quote from 110 »
Congratulations! You have just earned your Ph.D. in Obviousness!
Quote from 150 »
I'll take, "Vague and Unhelpful Answers" for $400, Alex.
.
A.) What makes you think that post wasn't serious?
Look at the absurd number of smilies in your early posts, most of which, if not all, follow a non-serious point.
B.) So what? Where, exactly, is the scum tell in whether a player is acting seriously? This is a game, you know.
It becomes a tell when explaining your vote and trying to put pressure on those that you suspect take a back seat to making jokes.
Because... I mentioned three players I found suspicious? This point is so bogus. You're exaggerating and ignoring the stances I've taken recently in favor of focusing on early reads.
+kpaca, +toastboy, +
Quote from 158 »
I noted interest in the people who came to my defense, not in who attacked me.
I gave reasons for my suspicion of kpaca here, long before my post which you quoted, AND also in a subsequent post which is quoted and linked in the same damn post you just linked to:
Your reason is a paragraph long explanation that you think he is trying to hard.
If you're town you're being sloppy as hell; I think you're looking to justify a vote on an easy target.
Xyre is an easy target. toastboy would have been an easy target (:rolleyes:). You are scum.
Lord forbid I make a probing comment on someone's behavior without outright reversing my position on that player.
Why would he forbid scum tells?
That would be because nothing changed between that post and the other posts where I did explain my reasons.
Xyre research is still incomplete. I have a couple of points for some folks.
NETFINITY
Post 224 - Attack on Az.
Post 256 - Responds to Az's response. what I don't understand is he's okay with Az's response overall, but ultimately concludes that everything he's okay with makes one specific point more suspicious (apparently suspicious enough to leave his vote on Az). I'd like further explanation on this from, Net. Looks like you're wasting your vote intentionally to me.
Of note: Az responds to Net in 258. I'll come back to this in a minute.
Also this bit...
Quote from Netfinity »
I don't think that this is entirely fair. While Skander has not pursued his own attacks, he has questioned other players and added unique points to other's cases. However, I can agree that I'm also getting a hollow feeling from Skander's posts. I think he could be putting out a lot more of his own thoughts and reads.
...is self-contradictory. Not a good sign.
Nets next post (294) says he can't post. Null.
Post 316 - Working on a theory with the mason claim. Requires re-read. Things I hate about this post: It makes no mention of Az. Net was not finished with Az by a long shot. Net asked Az more than one direct question back in post 256 that Az didn't directly answer. Net, why no follow up?
Post 347 - Agrees with Az, attacks Xyre. This has been mentioned, but his vote is still on Az, and he hasn't acknowledged Az's last response in any way. It's as if it's been forgotten. So he agrees with the guy he's voting, and then attacks the guy with the biggest wagon. Another bad sign (regardless of Xyre's alignment).
PHANTOMs
Leaving him in the neutral column for the moment. I wish he was more active. I can see a firm thought process in many of his posts, but something about the interactions with Xyre makes me itch (having trouble putting my finger on exactly what it is).
Not interested in pursuing him at this time. More activity would clear things up in a hurry, I think.
@XYRE- When did you first hypothesize about multiple mason groups?
@Kraj- How was Charm's behavior different from how Charm normally behaves as town, both when he was under pressure and when he was not?
Folks, note just how much andelijah didn't even bother to respond to here. It's not even that andelijah is making bad points that I can debunk, he's making points he doesn't even have the conviction enough to fight me on. The things he does respond to he does little more than repeat that it's scummy, there's no explanation of why.
He doesn't respond the the very first point of the case, which is ironic since it was an accusation of making points I didn't intend to follow up on. He doesn't respond to my indictment of disregarding relevant posts of mine in favor of focusing on my early posts. He has nothing to say about being obviously wrong in his point about Charm Master. He has nothing to say about my response to his WoD point even though there's still plenty of room to argue his side. He also doesn't call me out for OMGUSing which I would expect anyone who thought I was honestly scum would do.
This case is scummy, this response is scummy. Vote stands, with gusto.
It becomes a tell when explaining your vote and trying to put pressure on those that you suspect take a back seat to making jokes.
OK, sure. Now point to where I've done that after the first couple pages of the game? Attacking someone for having a joking tone during the early stages of the game... it's mind-boggling nonsense. And if I may indulge in meta, it's totally beneath you.
Your reason is a paragraph long explanation that you think he is trying to hard.
What's your point? Do you expect extensive cases to back up every suspicion on day 1? You accused me of not explaining my suspicion and only calling for other people to justify why they don't think he's scum. That's 100% false.
Once again: what scum tell? By the way, this is also hypocritical since you've made a couple pokes at Azrael without taking any stance on him.
This is the same basic tell you accused me of doing towards kpaca: just pointing at something and calling it scummy and letting other players decide why.
@Kraj- How was Charm's behavior different from how Charm normally behaves as town, both when he was under pressure and when he was not?
In my experience, Charm Master's play is relatively consistent between being town and scum. It's pretty common for him to make scummy-looking posts; you have to look at the motivation behind them to get a read on him. As it applies here, just making a bandwagony vote or using crap logic to back it up wouldn't be anywhere near enough to make me confident in suspicion of him. But take general lurkiness and lack of content when he does post, a bandwagony vote that he uses bad logic to defend not once but twice, then uses that same bad logic to try to make himself look good. That's an overall pattern of behavior that points to scum.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
@XYRE- When did you first hypothesize about multiple mason groups?
I don't know specifically. If I remember correctly, when I saw how people were filing others into their townie columns automatically (as I was with kpaca), I thought to myself, "hey, maybe I'm not the only mason". But I filed that away because I figured no mod would be crazy enough to run such a game.
Folks, note just how much andelijah didn't even bother to respond to here. It's not even that andelijah is making bad points that I can debunk, he's making points he doesn't even have the conviction enough to fight me on.
There is little point in following up on points that will turn into some sort of "yes you did" "no I didn't" type of argument.
He doesn't respond the the very first point of the case, which is ironic since it was an accusation of making points I didn't intend to follow up on.
I have followed up my points, with a vote and more points. You asked questions that got answered, but you didn't do anything with those answers. You said that I'm claiming to know your intentions, however, to which I will say see point 1.
He doesn't respond to my indictment of disregarding relevant posts of mine in favor of focusing on my early posts. He has nothing to say about being obviously wrong in his point about Charm Master.
You are arguing that your lack of specific language in this post is explained by a different post.
He has nothing to say about my response to his WoD point even though there's still plenty of room to argue his side.
Again, I've explained my side, you've given yours. There is nothing to debate here.
He also doesn't call me out for OMGUSing which I would expect anyone who thought I was honestly scum would do.
OMGUS is a weak tell with certain specific player exceptions. And had I called you out for OMGUS, you would have pointed immediately to your earlier stance on Charm Master and claimed otherwise.
Fantastic response. First, if you find these insulting you've got really thin skin.
You don't have to take offense for something to be an insult.
Second, where is the scum tell?
You're an antagonist, therefore you act accordingly. These types of posts put down observations and posts and encourage people to continue with neither.
So, when I pointed out that Chris had ironically voted me for bandwagoning while himself bandwagoning, it wasn't serious because it had a smiley?
You must have used at least 15 smilies, finding one exception does not disprove my point. And I'm sure there were also non-serious statements without smilies as well.
OK, sure. Now point to where I've done that after the first couple pages of the game? Attacking someone for having a joking tone during the early stages of the game... it's mind-boggling nonsense.
This is 100-200 posts in, after several serious votes.
That + would be netfinity. Thanks for reading.
And that makes 6, a majority.
Once again, where is the scumtell?
Scum need mislynches. For mislynches, they need suspects.
What's your point? Do you expect extensive cases to back up every suspicion on day 1?
No, but it shouldn't take 3 posts for you to explain a vote.
You accused me of not explaining my suspicion and only calling for other people to justify why they don't think he's scum. That's 100% false.
You have on at least 3 occasions disliked a post by kpaca, and only briefly explained one of them (after you revoted him).
Are you saying I'm not?
Indeed.
Once again: what scum tell?
What were you expecting to happen after you made that point?
By the way, this is also hypocritical since you've made a couple pokes at Azrael without taking any stance on him.
I made no pokes at his alignment.
This is the same basic tell you accused me of doing towards kpaca: just pointing at something and calling it scummy and letting other players decide why.
What you're doing with kpaca is calling him scummy and asking other players why they disagree with you.
And lurking is generally considered.... suspicious?
In my experience, Charm Master's play is relatively consistent between being town and scum. It's pretty common for him to make scummy-looking posts; you have to look at the motivation behind them to get a read on him. As it applies here, just making a bandwagony vote or using crap logic to back it up wouldn't be anywhere near enough to make me confident in suspicion of him. But take general lurkiness and lack of content when he does post, a bandwagony vote that he uses bad logic to defend not once but twice, then uses that same bad logic to try to make himself look good. That's an overall pattern of behavior that points to scum.
I agree Charm often looks scummy regardless of his alignment. The thing about Charm is that he doesn't care for attention as scum (not that anybody does, but he gets spooked easily). He does his best to plainsight lurk, and gambits aside, he doesn't make bold moves. When he voted you in an EDWOP after having just made a vote on someone else, that's a pretty big sign Charm isn't scum (or if he is, he's got a get out of jail free card of some kind). It's the kind of thing that would leave him feeling too exposed. I don't think Charm was scum.
And I'm going to stick with that read. Ande's recent attack is sub-par, but the timing of it is very strange if he's scum.
@Xyre - Okay. Why do think multiple masons would be such an odd setup to run? Yes, I'm serious.
@Xyre - To Netfinity's earlier point: You said WoD's early post (I want to say 78, but I'm not looking at notes so I may have the number wrong) was a very WoD thing to do earlier (and implied it was a town tell for him as I recall). Later in your PBPA of WoD you use the same post as a point against him. Can you explain this?
Pale Mage makes an excellent point regarding Charm Master's typical style, and he does wig out at any sign of pressure. He about had a heart-attack when I started the bus in his direction during Fiasco Corp. I agree with his assessment of CM's early play.
The problem here is that we have a significant divide in the player base; we have several analysts in the game now and several people who can't be bothered to post. I can see both sides of the argument involving Kraj and Andelijah, I don't think Xyre is scum, and PM has vastly improved my opinion from his predecessor.
My list of suspects is now quite narrow: Netfinity and Abandon Hope. The former for taking what seems to be an artificial shot at Azrael, then mostly agreeing with what he's said, and a number of "back later" posts. The latter for his complete and utter lack of anything regarding content.
@Xyre - Okay. Why do think multiple masons would be such an odd setup to run? Yes, I'm serious.
Because it requires one of two characteristics:
1) Mixed masons - some mason partners are scum and some are town. This is screwy for the same reason mixed masons are always screwy.
2) No mixed masons. This means that, if the town guesses it correctly, they can start confirming broad swaths of the town.
The bottom line is both of the above setups provoke massive setup metagaming. Consider Secret Invasion Mafia at GG, where everyone was in a mason trio. The game quickly devolved into metagaming and general shenanigans, and the town quickly lost. Turns out the mafia were randomly assigned. Durr hurr.
Maybe this is just the way I approach the game, but I've never found mixed masons to be balanced, for the reasons above. This is why I think it would be an odd setup.
@Xyre - To Netfinity's earlier point: You said WoD's early post (I want to say 78, but I'm not looking at notes so I may have the number wrong) was a very WoD thing to do earlier (and implied it was a town tell for him as I recall). Later in your PBPA of WoD you use the same post as a point against him. Can you explain this?
I approached that post in different ways. As previously noted, in that PBPA I overlooked my prior assumption that WoD frequently does scummy things like bandwagoning as town and instead broke down the post's language as I have in other PBPAs. In retrospect, this was a clear case of overthinking it.
The Andelijah-Kraj argument isn't doing much for me, though I need a second look at it.
As you also stated my bump off the neutral list landed me on your "leaning scum" list. I fail to see how "other priorities" should ever be a reason not to pursue players that one deems scummy.
Pursuing players I deemed scummier, perchance?
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
Ditto.
There were some parts of Xyre's response I thought were totally reasonable; there were some parts where I felt he was dodging valid points. It was dissappointing to see the entire response summarily ignored.
Azrael has made some good points, but not all his points are good. The 'concerned about image' tell, I feel, is very unreliable. I agree with the underlying theory, but in practice I've only ever seen it used before by DYH as part of bussing his own mafia buddies.
It's the rest of Azrael's case that interests me. Can you please respond to these items?:
@Xyre: You seem to be indirectly pointing out a variety of things in Azrael's case as being scummy, i.e., claiming a lot of misrepresentation, twisting of words, ignoring contrary evidence, etc. But you haven't outright said you feel Azrael's attack on you is scummy. Why not?
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
<comment removed due to Kraj's question>
Agreed, this appears to be different than what we've seen from Xyre this game.
Meh, I'm not sold on the language tells here.
EWP: Excellent question from Kraj. I've removed my comment to the first quote to see Xyre's response.
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
Because I can't shake the sensation that a scum Az wouldn't play like this. It's the standard scum-tells-in-a-vacuum-versus-scum-tells-respective-to-that-player debacle. I'll refer you to this on how I feel about Az:
I still need to process Netfinity and Toastboy before I consider this case in greater depth, and it's hard to focus on those while I'm trying to slog through this discussion. But I'll get started on them right now.
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
You guys really aren't reading his posts, are you?
For shame.
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
*shakes head* His tone has been off since the start of the game though, since before I ever started attacking him. Plus, I don't think Xyre's the type to be intimidated as a town because the AZRAEL MONSTER RAWWWWWR is coming to get him.
Since Kraj wants some bedside reading to drift off to sleep to...
It's not only newbs that get nervous about readjusting to mafia play. And there's a difference between the way townies DATBF, and mafia. My point is precisely that your DATBF stuck out like a sore thumb compared to everyone else's, this game.
My problem is that the tell didn't apply to these circumstances, for reasons I explained at the time of your post. If it had, be my guest.
Sure, if you still want to knock them off. That doesn't seem like much of a stretch.
Your uncertainty is the problem. You're expressing uncertainty on one hand, and laying into him with the other. It's an unnatural coupling, for the purpose of portraying yourself as a moderate while continuing to apply pressure.
Nope, the post itself.
:pwned button:
Excessive periods, incomplete sentences. It's choppy, as though you're struggling to piece together an adequate excuse post.
It allows plenty of room for disbelief.
I believe that's totally incorrect. The buddying point you brought up against Phantom was old news. The PBPA on WoD came after players had attacked him for an unexplained vote. The Kraj attack was all about old ground.
Only the Skander PBPA came close to an original thought, but it was so twisted beyond belief that I'm not sure you were genuinely thinking at all when you wrote it.
Meet the substance. You did not address my concerns.
When all else fails, attack credibility?
I think I missed that. I seem to recall pages on pages of you defending yourself. Players you deemed scummier would be a solid excuse, but I saw no such pursuit.
As previously stated, defending myself keeps me busy.
But, as promised, here's a few notes on Netfinity. Considering how much people tl;dred my previous posts, this one is greatly condensed.
Everything that can be said about Net's second post, the vote on Chris with a pretty terrible rationale, has been said. His next few posts are about same.
This is rather conspicuous, considering he made the second vote on Chris for a bad reason. Since he then turns around and indirectly attacks WoD, I think he either doesn't understand irony or is consciously taking a double-standard.
Then we get his response to Az's case on Toast (linking to it because he puts text into the quote, which is a pain). Seeing as Net hasn't interacted with Toast at all to this point (almost all his posts were related to Chris), this post is out-of-place - especially because one of Toast's random throwaway comments was "At the moment I find Netfinity most suspicious, but that's not saying much." More hits from this post:
This goes without saying. If Net's point was to merely dismantle a bad case, he wouldn't have mentioned Skander's post, and allowing another player to respond to arguments against himself is a given. So why would he mention this, unless he deliberately intervened in attacks on Toast? This is the kind of post that makes me think they're possible scum-buddies.
Then we have a series of points on the Kraj event, mostly pertaining to Chris. His arguments here are weak.
Then we have this (from this post), another example of ironic logic:
He did a similar thing for Toastboy (except in the opposite order). The implication of that post, and in particular the "I'll wait for T to respond to S" comment, is the same as the above: he implicitly assumes Toastboy's towniness. And, again, I don't know why he'd think this considering their lack of prior interactions.
Onto his next post. Despite attacking Az's case on Kraj vigorously in the last post, here he folds with minimal effort, providing no substantive responses to Az's responses. What baffles me about this post, though, is his repeated reference to Skander, who didn't warrant a mention in his top three scum list and indeed hadn't been mentioned by Net since his second post. The case here feels disingenous, peppered with qualifications and approached in a very inactive manner. This feels like a classic example of a ghost-case, and its presence in the post addressing Az feels like a way to disguise his backing away from the Az case.
Summary: Most of his posts are throwaway comments. The two posts that have truly substantive content are redundant and potentially defenses of a scumbuddy (the Toastboy post) or are immediately withdrawn and replaced with a case that is never mentioned again (the Skander post). I feel confident with a Vote Netfinity
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
For now, AH and Jobie are the two candidates for the honored position of third scum on my list.
I think it's about time Xyre was lynched, don't you guys think?
I will admit there was more of it than there needed to be. But I still disagree about my first post.
I felt it did and argued such. And I stand by that, even though I recognize there are rhetorical differences between individuals (something you should also recognize).
When do scum ever hang on the same target for an entire day? If the theory that scum want to seize opportunities, waiting for something to fall into their lap isn't a sound strategy. This is the reason why scum bandwagon and back off more frequently from lost wagons (in theory, of course).
I'm laying into him as I'd lay into any scum suspect (though "laying into him" is a poor choice of phrase to describe such); but there's a difference between how I'd approach a provisional and a rather certain scum suspect. It isn't unnatural inasmuch as the attack is tempered by uncertainty from the start.
That doesn't make sense. "Sorry" is a colloquial abbreviation of the grammatically correct phrase "I'm sorry". And there's nothing choppy about the first part, which I assume you're referring to (as there's nothing in that in the second part).
Hmm? You think I developed a dense argument knowing full well that I could back away... from a misunderstanding? I can think of several better ways I could have approached that as scum that wouldn't have created the "I made a mistake" gap.
The first and third were not just about that "old" material, though the third did ultimately hinge on that. The second assumes I developed a massive post just to bandwagon, which is silly. If I just wanted to jump on his wagon, I could have done so with a fraction of the information. Unless you think I developed all those reasons to disguise my bandwagoning, which again seems like more trouble than it's worth, especially considering how it blew up in my face.
Bottom line is you seem to equate long with "he's probably hiding something", where if you thought about the posts and their progressions for a few moments you'd realize they serve no strategic purpose for a scum that isn't dumber than a chimp.
Charming.
Man, I wish there was a smilie for the owl ORLY macro. That would save me a lot of time.
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
Good thing I'm going to vigged in Britannia, so I'll have more time to post in this and Led Zeppel-in.
We'll deal with your scum-buddy after you're dead. But I do agree with you.
There is some truth to this.
I do not endorse the Toast-wagon.
*braces for Axelrod, Rafk, or Arim to replace in next*
I'm going with the latter because I think I was pretty clear, and because he's scum.
Xyre's response to Az's "when all else fails, attack credibility" is not what I was expecting to see there. I agree with his thoughts around Netfinity, though. Oddly, I had commented that Netfinity seemed to be sucking up to Azrael, several of his posts contain "I agree with Az", but I realize now he's voting him? I missed something here.
More content from my third suspect would be nice, too. "Die from excessive text" might be what we're all feeling, but there has to be something more you can add.
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
Secret message decoded.
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
MTGS stats (won/played)
As scum - 3/5
As town - 5/7
As neutral - none
(I really have been scum a lot)
I'm now writing for Eye of the Vortex, come check out MTG articles and other geek culture
I also moderate the MTG forum, so register (it's free) and voice your thoughts.
MTGS stats (won/played)
As scum - 3/5
As town - 5/7
As neutral - none
(I really have been scum a lot)
I'm now writing for Eye of the Vortex, come check out MTG articles and other geek culture
I also moderate the MTG forum, so register (it's free) and voice your thoughts.
Unvote if voting.
Or Pale Mage
*nods* And we have an uncommon number of analysts replacing in. That should help too.
Heh. And it kind of fits the theme of the game, doesn't it?
As far as I'm concerned, you're still the one that puts the "anal" into "analysis"
Awwwww, thanks WoD. You're so sweet.
Ande is town since Charm was. A scum Charm doesn't vote then unvote in an EDWOP.
Kpain is town. This is important if I'm correct about the setup.
WoD is probably town. He immediately counterclaims kpaca.
Kraj is probably town.
Az is probably town.
I have initial good feelings from DYH. (Chris was in the middle for me, so my DYH read takes precedence).
Most everyone else is somewhere in the middle. Netfinity is my only strong scum read. I need to read him in isolation and be certain, though.
Xyre could be scum. (Setup and some of his arguments give me the impression he's arguing from a position of weakness).
Setup impressions:
With two mason pairs claimed and neither mod-confirmed (pretty sure that's what WoD meant when he said he could "somewhat vouch" for PhantomS), I would be surprised if there isn't one scum hiding amongst the four players. Possible that there could be more than one (one in each pair), but that seems a little unfair to the scum team if true.
So that would mean Xyre and PhantomS merit attention based on setup.
I need to read Netfinity and PhantomS in isolation. Xyre I need to look over specific sections again when I'm not reading at "catch up" speed. Holding vote for now, but expect my vote to be on one of those three along with further thoughts on the other two.
Want to lynch Xyre with us now?
Maybe. On re-read my Netfinity read is moving from "strong" to "moderate". I have stuff for him, but I want to complete my read of PhantomS and Xyre first and get it all out there at the same time. I should be able to get to PhantomS after work tomorrow, and Xyre following that.
You're fishing from the mod? Bold, my friend, bold.
I understand that we have a lot of replacements, so people need a fair amount of time to catch up, but posting and content need to pick up, from almost everyone. We're nearing the month mark, and I'm going to throw down a deadline if the discussion doesn't start moving.
MTGS stats (won/played)
As scum - 3/5
As town - 5/7
As neutral - none
(I really have been scum a lot)
I'm now writing for Eye of the Vortex, come check out MTG articles and other geek culture
I also moderate the MTG forum, so register (it's free) and voice your thoughts.
unvote: Vote Xyre
No you try!
Xyre - 5 (Az, PhantomS, kpaca, Skander, WoD)
WoD - 1 (AH)
kpaca - 1 (Kraj)
Azrael - 1 (Netfinity)
Kraj - 1 (Ande)
Toastboy - 1 (DYH)
Netfinity - 1 (Xyre)
Not voting: Pale Mage
7 to lynch
MTGS stats (won/played)
As scum - 3/5
As town - 5/7
As neutral - none
(I really have been scum a lot)
I'm now writing for Eye of the Vortex, come check out MTG articles and other geek culture
I also moderate the MTG forum, so register (it's free) and voice your thoughts.
More in depth of one post:
Only solid read here is Phantom = town.
kpaca = scum, maybe, but he doesn't appear eager to convince everyone else, and he's giving this read through the negative (wants other people to prove kpaca is town for him, rather than him prove kpaca is scum). Note, he also does that here.
Doesn't like Charm Master's play - but that is unspecific in terms of alignment (and in some cases, in terms of which game as well). The "digging a hole" comment means scum? but he doesn't really go out of his way to prove that assertion.
Wrath of Dog is odd, and Netfinity is confusing and weird. Again, no tell on alignment.
And the Azrael point lacks a conclusion either way as well, although I would say it is a somewhat leading observation.
Despite being a post with reads on several other players, I would say there are, at most, 3 reads, and even those aren't presented with any sort of belief behind them.
Salvation Mafia Clan
Mafia Stats
last updated 03/23/11
I've repeatedly explained how scummy I thought Charm Master was and why. After reading the game, rereading me, and rereading my other games, the best andelijah has got is an attack full of lousy points.
The points I made in both those posts were answered. Interesting that you claim to know my intentions, though.
Gee, there hasn't been any discussion about this has there? "Insults other players" is a worthless point that doesn't nothing except colour me as a villain.
A.) What makes you think that post wasn't serious? B.) So what? Where, exactly, is the scum tell in whether a player is acting seriously? This is a [I]game[/I], you know.
Because... I mentioned three players I found suspicious? This point is so bogus. You're exaggerating and ignoring the stances I've taken recently in favor of focusing on early reads.
In fact, pretty much every point you have is based on my earliest posts and ignores all my other posts that are relevant to your points. For example...
Bullcrap. I gave reasons for my suspicion of kpaca [URL="http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=4138261&postcount=155"]here[/URL], long before my post which you quoted, [I]AND[/I] also in a subsequent post which is quoted and linked in the same damn post you just linked to:
If you're town you're being sloppy as hell; I think you're looking to justify a vote on an easy target. None of your reasons hold up and I'm fairly confident a townie who actually read my posts trying to make up his mind about me would not have made the case you just made.
And if you actually read my posts you would have seen the explanations I gave for thinking Charm Master is scum [URL="http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=4143834&highlight=charm#post4143834"]here[/URL] and [URL="http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=4145769&highlight=charm#post4145769"]here[/URL].
So when I said I'm not sold on WoD being scum, that's not a read on alignment? OK, sure, it's not a 100% solid stance, but considering there was a case and wagon growing on him, saying I don't agree is pretty relevant. The only real fence sitting I did in this post was on Netfinity.
Lord forbid I make a probing comment on someone's behavior without outright reversing my position on that player.
That would be because nothing changed between that post and the other posts where I [I]did[/I] explain my reasons.
This case is just utter crap. It lacks any research into whether its conclusions are accurate, it's just a bunch of points that have either already been argued against by me or make no sense if you look at my other posts. There is no ring of sincerity here, nothing I can point to and say "that's fair".
Charm Master voted Skander and then me for fast wagoning Toastboy while completely avoiding making his own opinion on Toastboy. He repeatedly argued that Toastboy was in danger of getting speedlynched, which is complete b.s., and then took credit for preventing that from happening. He posts infrequently and lacks solid content. Charm starts showing up on people's suspect lists: mine, [URL="http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=4147248&postcount=203"]Xyre's[/URL], [URL="http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=4147416&postcount=204"]Skander's[/URL], [URL="http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=4149499&postcount=213"]Chris's[/URL], [URL="http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=4152370&postcount=224"]Netfinity's[/URL], [URL="http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=4152499&postcount=226"]AH's[/URL] (sort of), and whoops! He replaces out. Granted that's not really a valid point against him, but it certainly does seem damn convenient. andelijah comes in, has almost nothing to say other than he's reading lots of stuff and he thinks I'm scum, and then posts this terrible case. And it's not just a terrible case, it's a scummy case. This is completely different in every describable way from how either Azrael or Xyre cased me.
List tags are malformed.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
.
Look at the absurd number of smilies in your early posts, most of which, if not all, follow a non-serious point.
It becomes a tell when explaining your vote and trying to put pressure on those that you suspect take a back seat to making jokes.
+kpaca, +toastboy, +
Your reason is a paragraph long explanation that you think he is trying to hard.
Xyre is an easy target. toastboy would have been an easy target (:rolleyes:). You are scum.
Why would he forbid scum tells?
You, Xyre, and Netfinity found Charm Master scummy. Chris and Skander mentioned him in the context of lurking.
Salvation Mafia Clan
Mafia Stats
last updated 03/23/11
NETFINITY
Post 224 - Attack on Az.
Post 256 - Responds to Az's response. what I don't understand is he's okay with Az's response overall, but ultimately concludes that everything he's okay with makes one specific point more suspicious (apparently suspicious enough to leave his vote on Az). I'd like further explanation on this from, Net. Looks like you're wasting your vote intentionally to me.
Of note: Az responds to Net in 258. I'll come back to this in a minute.
Also this bit...
...is self-contradictory. Not a good sign.
Nets next post (294) says he can't post. Null.
Post 316 - Working on a theory with the mason claim. Requires re-read. Things I hate about this post: It makes no mention of Az. Net was not finished with Az by a long shot. Net asked Az more than one direct question back in post 256 that Az didn't directly answer. Net, why no follow up?
Post 347 - Agrees with Az, attacks Xyre. This has been mentioned, but his vote is still on Az, and he hasn't acknowledged Az's last response in any way. It's as if it's been forgotten. So he agrees with the guy he's voting, and then attacks the guy with the biggest wagon. Another bad sign (regardless of Xyre's alignment).
PHANTOMs
Leaving him in the neutral column for the moment. I wish he was more active. I can see a firm thought process in many of his posts, but something about the interactions with Xyre makes me itch (having trouble putting my finger on exactly what it is).
Not interested in pursuing him at this time. More activity would clear things up in a hurry, I think.
@XYRE- When did you first hypothesize about multiple mason groups?
@Kraj- How was Charm's behavior different from how Charm normally behaves as town, both when he was under pressure and when he was not?
He doesn't respond the the very first point of the case, which is ironic since it was an accusation of making points I didn't intend to follow up on. He doesn't respond to my indictment of disregarding relevant posts of mine in favor of focusing on my early posts. He has nothing to say about being obviously wrong in his point about Charm Master. He has nothing to say about my response to his WoD point even though there's still plenty of room to argue his side. He also doesn't call me out for OMGUSing which I would expect anyone who thought I was honestly scum would do.
This case is scummy, this response is scummy. Vote stands, with gusto.
Fantastic response. First, if you find these insulting you've got really thin skin. Second, where is the scum tell?
So, when I pointed out that Chris had ironically voted me for bandwagoning while himself bandwagoning, it wasn't serious because it had a smiley?
OK, sure. Now point to where I've done that after the first couple pages of the game? Attacking someone for having a joking tone during the early stages of the game... it's mind-boggling nonsense. And if I may indulge in meta, it's totally beneath you.
That + would be netfinity. Thanks for reading.
Once again, where is the scumtell?
What's your point? Do you expect extensive cases to back up every suspicion on day 1? You accused me of not explaining my suspicion and only calling for other people to justify why they don't think he's scum. That's 100% false.
Yes he is.
Yes, he would have been.
Are you saying I'm not?
Once again: what scum tell? By the way, this is also hypocritical since you've made a couple pokes at Azrael without taking any stance on him.
This is the same basic tell you accused me of doing towards kpaca: just pointing at something and calling it scummy and letting other players decide why.
And lurking is generally considered.... suspicious?
In my experience, Charm Master's play is relatively consistent between being town and scum. It's pretty common for him to make scummy-looking posts; you have to look at the motivation behind them to get a read on him. As it applies here, just making a bandwagony vote or using crap logic to back it up wouldn't be anywhere near enough to make me confident in suspicion of him. But take general lurkiness and lack of content when he does post, a bandwagony vote that he uses bad logic to defend not once but twice, then uses that same bad logic to try to make himself look good. That's an overall pattern of behavior that points to scum.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
I don't know specifically. If I remember correctly, when I saw how people were filing others into their townie columns automatically (as I was with kpaca), I thought to myself, "hey, maybe I'm not the only mason". But I filed that away because I figured no mod would be crazy enough to run such a game.
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
I have followed up my points, with a vote and more points. You asked questions that got answered, but you didn't do anything with those answers. You said that I'm claiming to know your intentions, however, to which I will say see point 1.
You are arguing that your lack of specific language in this post is explained by a different post.
Again, I've explained my side, you've given yours. There is nothing to debate here.
OMGUS is a weak tell with certain specific player exceptions. And had I called you out for OMGUS, you would have pointed immediately to your earlier stance on Charm Master and claimed otherwise.
You don't have to take offense for something to be an insult.
You're an antagonist, therefore you act accordingly. These types of posts put down observations and posts and encourage people to continue with neither.
You must have used at least 15 smilies, finding one exception does not disprove my point. And I'm sure there were also non-serious statements without smilies as well.
This is 100-200 posts in, after several serious votes.
And that makes 6, a majority.
Scum need mislynches. For mislynches, they need suspects.
No, but it shouldn't take 3 posts for you to explain a vote.
You have on at least 3 occasions disliked a post by kpaca, and only briefly explained one of them (after you revoted him).
Indeed.
What were you expecting to happen after you made that point?
I made no pokes at his alignment.
What you're doing with kpaca is calling him scummy and asking other players why they disagree with you.
Depends entirely on the player.
Salvation Mafia Clan
Mafia Stats
last updated 03/23/11
I agree Charm often looks scummy regardless of his alignment. The thing about Charm is that he doesn't care for attention as scum (not that anybody does, but he gets spooked easily). He does his best to plainsight lurk, and gambits aside, he doesn't make bold moves. When he voted you in an EDWOP after having just made a vote on someone else, that's a pretty big sign Charm isn't scum (or if he is, he's got a get out of jail free card of some kind). It's the kind of thing that would leave him feeling too exposed. I don't think Charm was scum.
And I'm going to stick with that read. Ande's recent attack is sub-par, but the timing of it is very strange if he's scum.
@Xyre - Okay. Why do think multiple masons would be such an odd setup to run? Yes, I'm serious.
@Xyre - To Netfinity's earlier point: You said WoD's early post (I want to say 78, but I'm not looking at notes so I may have the number wrong) was a very WoD thing to do earlier (and implied it was a town tell for him as I recall). Later in your PBPA of WoD you use the same post as a point against him. Can you explain this?
Pale Mage makes an excellent point regarding Charm Master's typical style, and he does wig out at any sign of pressure. He about had a heart-attack when I started the bus in his direction during Fiasco Corp. I agree with his assessment of CM's early play.
The problem here is that we have a significant divide in the player base; we have several analysts in the game now and several people who can't be bothered to post. I can see both sides of the argument involving Kraj and Andelijah, I don't think Xyre is scum, and PM has vastly improved my opinion from his predecessor.
My list of suspects is now quite narrow: Netfinity and Abandon Hope. The former for taking what seems to be an artificial shot at Azrael, then mostly agreeing with what he's said, and a number of "back later" posts. The latter for his complete and utter lack of anything regarding content.
Vote: Netfinity
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
Because it requires one of two characteristics:
1) Mixed masons - some mason partners are scum and some are town. This is screwy for the same reason mixed masons are always screwy.
2) No mixed masons. This means that, if the town guesses it correctly, they can start confirming broad swaths of the town.
The bottom line is both of the above setups provoke massive setup metagaming. Consider Secret Invasion Mafia at GG, where everyone was in a mason trio. The game quickly devolved into metagaming and general shenanigans, and the town quickly lost. Turns out the mafia were randomly assigned. Durr hurr.
Maybe this is just the way I approach the game, but I've never found mixed masons to be balanced, for the reasons above. This is why I think it would be an odd setup.
I approached that post in different ways. As previously noted, in that PBPA I overlooked my prior assumption that WoD frequently does scummy things like bandwagoning as town and instead broke down the post's language as I have in other PBPAs. In retrospect, this was a clear case of overthinking it.
The Andelijah-Kraj argument isn't doing much for me, though I need a second look at it.
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia