Not a big problem... I just felt a need to tab away from this page whenever I thought someone was walking past.
You know, there's also an option in your User Control Panel (accessed through going through 'Quick Links' in the top bar, then clicking 'Edit Options') where you can auto-hide every signature (and when you click on the '__________' the signature is revealed). Then you don't have the problem of having to look at Rhand's signature image by default, while others can freely enjoy looking at it without first having to open the spoiler.
Hey, thanks! That's a lot better. And now I don't have to be scared by zombie Betty White whenever I wander into mod territory.
To the contrary, I would have been for a void lynch. I like starting wagons, as I stated, but I don't just pick at random, you know.
Whether I'm still for a void lynch, I am not sure. But he's acting like scumvoid right now, so probably.
Okay, wait. You voted Void for the first time in a post where you also said "RVS isn't over", which makes me doubt that you had a real reason for voting him. In your next post you propose lynching him, with no reason given. Your response to Wessel seems to indicate that you tried to start a wagon to check for followers and reactions. And now you're claiming that you had a reason to vote him, and that you believe he is acting like Scum!Void.
If your position really is that you believe this to be Scum!Void, I'm going to need you to back it up with something. Because so far you've done the equivalent of zooming around the office in a swivel chair while laughing at people who try to follow you.
Sounds about right.
My original vote was for unvoting while we were still in RVS. I'm not sure why he would bother to do this. Since then he gave me the total cold shoulder and has been acting weird, which makes me think he's actually scum.
So my reason for voting him/calling for his lynch is real, though as usual not fully expressed until later on.
Okay, wait. You voted Void for the first time in a post where you also said "RVS isn't over", which makes me doubt that you had a real reason for voting him. In your next post you propose lynching him, with no reason given. Your response to Wessel seems to indicate that you tried to start a wagon to check for followers and reactions. And now you're claiming that you had a reason to vote him, and that you believe he is acting like Scum!Void.
If your position really is that you believe this to be Scum!Void, I'm going to need you to back it up with something. Because so far you've done the equivalent of zooming around the office in a swivel chair while laughing at people who try to follow you.
Sounds about right.
My original vote was for unvoting while we were still in RVS. I'm not sure why he would bother to do this. Since then he gave me the total cold shoulder and has been acting weird, which makes me think he's actually scum.
So my reason for voting him/calling for his lynch is real, though as usual not fully expressed until later on.
...oh. Apparently I misunderstood your initial vote of him - I thought that you saying "RVS isn't over" indicated that you were doing an RVS vote of him, not that you were voting him for something that you think shouldn't be done during RVS.
Also, "acting weird" is not in any way specific enough that I know why you think Void is scum.
Yeah, call it gut for now. But I have to state that I'm spread real thin with mafia right now, so I may be revising that opinion after I get a chance to reread.
Other people have asked me questions:
EtR: As opposed to the kind that has a vote that counts as two votes, rather than one who must cast two votes.
Of course the fence-sit post went ignored for a while but a person without too many previous posts in the discussion brings it up, followed by two more people without too many previous posts, hardly bandwagoning as opposed to staking a really good claim. Perhaps I'm missing something fishy?
A second look at this post makes me dislike this.
Three people vote for her. Her immediate response is to wonder if she's missing something fishy. There are two options here, given the context isn't fully clear. One, that there's something fishy with her accusers. That's oblique mudslinging. Two, that there's something fishy in her posts that she's missing.
Town shouldn't be wondering if there's something fishy in their posts that's being attacked.
While it isn't implied which one she means, you've never received several votes as town and wondered what was so fishy about your posts that you received said votes?
Nope. It's always "what they see as fishy", not "what is fishy".
I just want to get this clear. You all think Lennon is just a noob that's flailing? I mean, I can accept that I might be wrong, it was just that all his reactions seemed... off to me.
Why does people disagreeing with you mean that you're wrong?
...I'm pretty disappointed to find out my responses here consist of me quoting my own posts as an adequate response. Well, except one detail about the trains. I made a note about them in my reply, but left it at that. It's vague to represent the situations which are vague - the trains are too far off into the distance to make out the details: they're silhouettes. The context is the set of train tracks in front of you. That, and it was set-up for an elaborate joke I wanted to make but probably won't at this point.
Of course the fence-sit post went ignored for a while but a person without too many previous posts in the discussion brings it up, followed by two more people without too many previous posts, hardly bandwagoning as opposed to staking a really good claim. Perhaps I'm missing something fishy?
Three people vote for her. Her immediate response is to wonder if she's missing something fishy. There are two options here, given the context isn't fully clear. One, that there's something fishy with her accusers. That's oblique mudslinging. Two, that there's something fishy in her posts that she's missing.
Town shouldn't be wondering if there's something fishy in their posts that's being attacked.
The bolded: If Teh JeY is town, then why wouldn't she want to know what is fishy about her posts when she is not familiar with are meta?
I meant fishy in general. I wasn't exactly thinking of my own posts, but if you wanted to expand it to there that's possible.
I've been also following the Lennon plight, and now that there is a wide variety of flavors to choose from, I pick Strawberry!
Strawberry is a delicious, sweet, fruity flavor that is a bit more exotic than standard fruits and is actually sweeter most other sugary treats. It is liked more often than not and blends well with very tangy citrisus like Lime, but usually not much more than that. Basically his case seemed likable enough but there IS that chance of a really sour taste mixed with it. However, I picked Strawberry on its own, not blended, in light of its sweetness. The newb card certainly makes things difficult to clearly judge, but he seems to really be trying hard for his first game, and instead of making up stories, asked 'why'. Though what will he do next...
If I make a concentrated effort to parse this, I think I get fencesitting.
However, that paragraph talks about something 'missing' in my explanation, which doesn't make sense as an explanation if you think someone's scum.
Let me remind you that the word 'reactions' exists. I was genuine when I said that something I wanted to see was missing in your post, and being claimed that it doesn't make sense feels like you're ignoring the point. Someone recently... seemed much less applicable by saying what you seem to be missing.
In this post, you quote Lennonmint's 155, but you fail to mention his 156, in which he provides some content. Why did you ignore that, if you are attacking him for a lack of content?
You think "But if i was too vote it would be for swishh because he seems to fool around alot which might mean something" is content? He fence-sits, and then says that swishh is fooling around. How? How is swishh fooling around? I provided quotes of Lennon's, showing his weak play. And the noob card is just icing on the cake.
I just want to get this clear. You all think Lennon is just a noob that's flailing? I mean, I can accept that I might be wrong, it was just that all his reactions seemed... off to me.
Why does people disagreeing with you mean that you're wrong?
It doesn't. But Lennon is either scum or he isn't, so one of the two disagreeing groups is wrong. What I'm saying is that I'm not afraid to say "Yeah, I totally had the wrong read on Lennon" if my mind is changed. Right now, I'm trying to figure out if I'm being blinded by what I thought was bad play or if I'm right and he is scum.
In this post, you quote Lennonmint's 155, but you fail to mention his 156, in which he provides some content. Why did you ignore that, if you are attacking him for a lack of content?
You think "But if i was too vote it would be for swishh because he seems to fool around alot which might mean something" is content? He fence-sits, and then says that swishh is fooling around. How? How is swishh fooling around? I provided quotes of Lennon's, showing his weak play. And the noob card is just icing on the cake.
I guess I didn't ignore it?
True: once Rhand called you out on ignoring the content that swishh had provided, you stopped ignoring it. But that doesn't change my question. Why, when writing up post 160 about Lennonmint not providing content, did you quote his post that indeed had no content, while ignoring the post immediately under it that did?
In this post, you quote Lennonmint's 155, but you fail to mention his 156, in which he provides some content. Why did you ignore that, if you are attacking him for a lack of content?
You think "But if i was too vote it would be for swishh because he seems to fool around alot which might mean something" is content? He fence-sits, and then says that swishh is fooling around. How? How is swishh fooling around? I provided quotes of Lennon's, showing his weak play. And the noob card is just icing on the cake.
I guess I didn't ignore it?
True: once Rhand called you out on ignoring the content that swishh had provided, you stopped ignoring it. But that doesn't change my question. Why, when writing up post 160 about Lennonmint not providing content, did you quote his post that indeed had no content, while ignoring the post immediately under it that did?
Because it's about as useless as any other post. I only needed one of the recent posts, not all of them. I mean, he says if he was to vote it'd be for swishh... so do it. And "because he seems to fool around alot"? Why not just put "because I feel like it", it's the same amount of information. Which is none.
Of course the fence-sit post went ignored for a while but a person without too many previous posts in the discussion brings it up, followed by two more people without too many previous posts, hardly bandwagoning as opposed to staking a really good claim. Perhaps I'm missing something fishy?
Three people vote for her. Her immediate response is to wonder if she's missing something fishy. There are two options here, given the context isn't fully clear. One, that there's something fishy with her accusers. That's oblique mudslinging. Two, that there's something fishy in her posts that she's missing.
Town shouldn't be wondering if there's something fishy in their posts that's being attacked.
The bolded: If Teh JeY is town, then why wouldn't she want to know what is fishy about her posts when she is not familiar with are meta?
First, how is site meta relevant in this case?
The second is more complicated, and I misworded it slightly. Take the original phrase, "Perhaps I'm missing something fishy?" From this, it can be inferred that there could be something fishy she's not missing. Or, rather, that she believes that there could be something fishy in her post.
It's a guilty mindset. Consider: would you be wondering if there's something scummy in your post?
Do you remember Basic #64 Stuff I Like Mafia Modded by Emo Pinata? The game was created to bring players over from Px2 so they could see what are Mafia Community was like. There play on this site was not very good and came across rather scummy most of the time. It's simply that their meta on Px2 varies in comparison to MTGS. And since Teh JeY comes from another site I would believe their meta to be different from ours and therefore Teh JeY may not believe her posts are fishy.
While I get the point you are coming too I don't see this as just a scum thought process.
Wessel
958 is three digits from the Zip Code that live in. It was randomly generated as a screen name for me a long time ago and it stuck for while. I just got lucky on this that no one had claimed “Void” prior to me.
The fact that you are refusing to comment on your vote, especially after someone asked you specifically to comment on his vote for you, makes you look scummy. You are also quick to get defensive, nobody is really getting on you're back. Now what would you have to be defensive about?
Unvote Vote Lennonmint
Unvote Vote: Anaklusmos
Anak is an experienced player here on this site, but he assumes that this post could only come from scum. That is not a town mind set. He's going for low hanging fruit and hoping it sticks.
Why is Anak a better vote than any of the others you've been questioning?
Anak is an experienced player here on this site, but he assumes that this post could only come from scum. That is not a town mind set. He's going for low hanging fruit and hoping it sticks.
You're putting words into my mouth. I say that somethings he did looked scummy, and voted him for it. That doesn't mean I think he is scum, it means he did something I wasn't a fan of, and I wanted to push him a bit to see his reactions to being voted again. That way, I would be able to discern if he was town that just happened to do something that I didn't like, or he was scum that continued to act shady. Applying pressure via voting is not something you only can do against scum, it's not like he was close to being lynched at that point anyway.
For someone who is also experienced, watching me do that should be a pretty easy indicator that I'm pressuring him to see how he responds. You are the pot calling the kettle black, as you are only seeing my vote and reasoning against him as scummy, not bothering to think of a way my vote makes sense from a town perspective.
Calling me out for doing something, then doing that yourself? IGMEOY. OMGUS
Eron, do you believe that Anak is low hanging fruit? That's what I am getting from this post.
I just want to get this clear. You all think Lennon is just a noob that's flailing? I mean, I can accept that I might be wrong, it was just that all his reactions seemed... off to me.
I'm not reading Lennon as flailing so much as I am reading Lennon as a complete and utter newb. I have not seen anything from Lennon that points towards him being scum or town at the moment.
Anak is an experienced player here on this site, but he assumes that this post could only come from scum. That is not a town mind set. He's going for low hanging fruit and hoping it sticks.
You're putting words into my mouth. I say that somethings he did looked scummy, and voted him for it. That doesn't mean I think he is scum, it means he did something I wasn't a fan of, and I wanted to push him a bit to see his reactions to being voted again. That way, I would be able to discern if he was town that just happened to do something that I didn't like, or he was scum that continued to act shady. Applying pressure via voting is not something you only can do against scum, it's not like he was close to being lynched at that point anyway.
For someone who is also experienced, watching me do that should be a pretty easy indicator that I'm pressuring him to see how he responds. You are the pot calling the kettle black, as you are only seeing my vote and reasoning against him as scummy, not bothering to think of a way my vote makes sense from a town perspective.
Calling me out for doing something, then doing that yourself? IGMEOY.
You found something scummy about his post, but don't believe him to be scum? I think your use of the word “scummy” is inaccurate in the context. Maybe “suspicious” would have been better since you don't believe him to be scum although I don't know how truthful you are being at this point. The fact that you used the word “scummy” but don't believe him to be scum paints Lennon into a more negative light than “suspicious” would have. What does not being close to lynch have to do with going after a newb player? It's like your trying to subtlety trying to throw in an excuse that has no real bearing on the discussion at hand.
I'm the only one seeing your vote and reasoning as scummy? Granted Wessel and Eron did not out right call you scum they still thought the observation good enough to comment on and agree with to an extent. See below:
For me it's the fact that Anak is an experienced player and knows that the mind set presented is not just a scum mind set. He didn't even consider the other option in his post and that is a rather big red flag for me.
Sure, it could be bad play versus scummy play, but I haven't seen too many games where Anak makes bad moves. The last game I played with Anak was Basic #59 Modern Family where he was scum. He managed to lurk through most the game while avoiding the little pressure that came his way. While that is not the primary reason that the Town lost it is still something that I will not forget. For now I believe pressuring Anak is a good route to take.
Experienced player != good player. I wanted to pressure him to see how he responded to it. Doesn't mean I went about that in the best way, but if I had given a townie rationale for that, then he would be able to float my townie reasoning for what he did, and the whole looking for reactions thing would have been rendered fruitless.
You haven't seen too many games where I make bad moves? I do it all the time, you just aren't looking hard enough. About lurking, I never have been one to post very frequently, sometimes it spikes up for a couple days but usually I post once a day or so. So, in general I have a more lurky playstyle. That game specifically, I pushed it a little further, mostly because the town was not calling me out on it (from what I remember, its been a while) and it was making it very easy for me to avoid pressure through the whole game. So, just because I lurked that one game as scum and won, doesn't mean every time I lurk I am scum, I do it every game.
Now, what I got from Lennon. He is nervous, in his first game, and someone voted him that is experienced, without reasoning. Instead of freaking out, he asks for reasoning about that vote. When I vote him, he again stays calm, doesn't get any more defensive, and tries to find someone he doesn't like and reasoning for it. Sure the reasoning is wishy washy, but that's not the point. The point is he is trying, and for someone in their first game, that is what matters. Combined with taking votes in stride and not getting ultra-defensive, I believe that Lennon is just a newb townie.
Unvote
Swishh is also looking more townie. Responded well to me, is now scumhunting and posting content. Will be reading more and have another post up tonight.
What reaction(s) were you expecting to get from Lennon?
I only commented on your lurking because of Basic #59 not because of your play here. I understand having a more lurky playing style since RL has changed how post recently, but why you decide to defend yourself from an accusation that was not being pressed against you in this game has rattled my brain some. You mentioned how Lennon was quick to be defensive, but then you turn around and do it yourself when you aren't being accused of lurking. I also never said that your lurking was a scum tell in your books, but at the end of Basic #59 you pointed out how lurking needs to be dealt with. Here is that post as a reminder:
Let this game be a lesson for all new players. Allowing scum to lurk like I did makes them really hard to find anything to pin on them, if you don't go after them for lurking. Drey made a few minor threats, but I was not being punished for sitting in the shadows. Sure, you guys agreed to lynch me tomorrow, maybe, but I should have been strung up long ago if I didn't actually start doing things. You guys let me sit back and watch while you guys imploded.
Though, I could do that in part because of my awesome scummates. GG you guys (I will let you reveal yourselves)
Do you believe possible that Lennon calmed down because your post where you voted him? I've reread the post a few times now and while you are being accusatory towards Lennon it is also being read as subtle coaching in the process. I believe your post changed how Lennon was reacting and now that you have unvote Lennon makes me believe the two of you are know more about this game than the rest of the town.
Then you comment on swishh in a passive way without giving much explanation beyond “Hey, look at what swishh is doing now compared to the beginning. This change in behavior makes swishh look more town to me.”
Please explain why this is only a scum mind set option and not a town mind set option.
Is such a bad vote followed by OMGUS something that often comes from a town mindset?
I'm asking you the question. What is your belief?
Wish I had two votes at this point.
Sorry, I was being sarcastic. It doesn't work well in text. The question was meant to imply that I don't believe that often comes from a town mindset. It's distracting and does nothing to help the town.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Looking for a playgroup in/around Jerusalem, Israel. PM with details.
In this post, you quote Lennonmint's 155, but you fail to mention his 156, in which he provides some content. Why did you ignore that, if you are attacking him for a lack of content?
You think "But if i was too vote it would be for swishh because he seems to fool around alot which might mean something" is content? He fence-sits, and then says that swishh is fooling around. How? How is swishh fooling around? I provided quotes of Lennon's, showing his weak play. And the noob card is just icing on the cake.
I guess I didn't ignore it?
True: once Rhand called you out on ignoring the content that swishh had provided, you stopped ignoring it. But that doesn't change my question. Why, when writing up post 160 about Lennonmint not providing content, did you quote his post that indeed had no content, while ignoring the post immediately under it that did?
Because it's about as useless as any other post. I only needed one of the recent posts, not all of them. I mean, he says if he was to vote it'd be for swishh... so do it. And "because he seems to fool around alot"? Why not just put "because I feel like it", it's the same amount of information. Which is none.
i was trying to add content to why i would vote for him and not just cast a random vote that meant nothing
Oops, missed the bluff calling - actually I thought it was because Lennon never posted still - I checked the entire topic previous to that post 2-3 times and didn't see his name, but he actually had one tiny post so meh. By the time I realized it, I found a much better engage to pursue.
I have to say, your stream of consciousness posting is making it difficult for me to discern what you mean.
But, can you tell me why you would think RobRoy would be voting Lennon simply because he hadn't posted? Was pretty early in the game, and he wasn't the only one with low or no posts.
Like I said, there were three really good accusations started, but if I had nothing to add, why post at all? Perhaps I was a bit excited to play, but yeesh a costly mistake for such a trivial emotion. Still, I wasn't going to sit for long.
The point I was making was that you had nothing to add (supposedly), but then suddenly did not long after, without pointing out the motive you claimed you wanted to see. It was the inconsistency that caught my eye, not the vote.
Quote from Teh_JeY »
The worst thing is these attacks barely warrant anything scum-worthy to mention. Of course the fence-sit post went ignored for a while but a person without too many previous posts in the discussion brings it up, followed by two more people without too many previous posts, hardly bandwagoning as opposed to staking a really good claim. Perhaps I'm missing something fishy?
These are strange points. What does my number of posts have to do with my analysis?
I also don't think you would be so self-aware of if you're being fishy or not as town.
I'm actually liking Teh JeY's posts so far. She's been posting a lot, and I'm not getting the feeling that she is taking much time to consider her posts before throwing them out there. That strikes me as more of a townie mindset, or a very comfortable scum. The wildcard in this is that she obviously has outside experience.
Why do you say she obviously has outside experience? I have no experience playing with her, but she does mention that she's never played before:
unvote Teh JeY. I think I misread her enthousiasm for nervousness.
The pressure didn't bring her off balance. The posting of her whole thought process makes what she types very hard to fake.
Agreed that her unique posting style has made it less likely to be contrived. And I believe that she believes what she's saying.
But that doesn't make her inconsistent actions any less noteworthy.
Quote from Wessel »
POST #169
Wessel had a lot of very interesting things to say in this post, and I found myself agreeing with much of it. I do disagree with his conclusions on Teh_JeY at this juncture however.
Let me remind you that the word 'reactions' exists. I was genuine when I said that something I wanted to see was missing in your post, and being claimed that it doesn't make sense feels like you're ignoring the point. Someone recently... seemed much less applicable by saying what you seem to be missing.
The whimsical strawberry nature of your posts aside, I'll need to get this on record. No skirting that you are simply looking for reactions. At the time you voted Cyouni, was it because you felt he was scum?
It was meant to mean that at this point I didn't see it necessary to vote, but depending on his response I may. I didn't see the comment as scummy but more curious. Being as this is Swishh's first game, I needed more before I considered placing a vote.
That's fair enough. That perspective at least helps me make sense of the dichotomy I saw.
I just want to get this clear. You all think Lennon is just a noob that's flailing? I mean, I can accept that I might be wrong, it was just that all his reactions seemed... off to me.
I fail...to see the flail. What about his reactions felt like scum flailing?
I'm pleased to announce I passed my actuary exam and have returned home from vacation. I'll be paying closer attention to what's going on henceforth.
Grats!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from TheFooFish »
Lies! -I'm Buffy Summers, town tracker. I used my ability on you and saw that you didn't use any abilities before the game started. My flavor is I was sucked through a mysterious space-time portal and I'm here to kill all the vampires, and my tracking ability is a combination of my Slayer and Native American skills.
I just want to get this clear. You all think Lennon is just a noob that's flailing? I mean, I can accept that I might be wrong, it was just that all his reactions seemed... off to me.
I'm not reading Lennon as flailing so much as I am reading Lennon as a complete and utter newb. I have not seen anything from Lennon that points towards him being scum or town at the moment.
I just want to get this clear. You all think Lennon is just a noob that's flailing? I mean, I can accept that I might be wrong, it was just that all his reactions seemed... off to me.
I fail...to see the flail. What about his reactions felt like scum flailing?
Saying that swishh was fooling around felt like he was struggling to find a valid reason to vote.
In this post, you quote Lennonmint's 155, but you fail to mention his 156, in which he provides some content. Why did you ignore that, if you are attacking him for a lack of content?
You think "But if i was too vote it would be for swishh because he seems to fool around alot which might mean something" is content? He fence-sits, and then says that swishh is fooling around. How? How is swishh fooling around? I provided quotes of Lennon's, showing his weak play. And the noob card is just icing on the cake.
I guess I didn't ignore it?
True: once Rhand called you out on ignoring the content that swishh had provided, you stopped ignoring it. But that doesn't change my question. Why, when writing up post 160 about Lennonmint not providing content, did you quote his post that indeed had no content, while ignoring the post immediately under it that did?
Because it's about as useless as any other post. I only needed one of the recent posts, not all of them. I mean, he says if he was to vote it'd be for swishh... so do it. And "because he seems to fool around alot"? Why not just put "because I feel like it", it's the same amount of information. Which is none.
i was trying to add content to why i would vote for him and not just cast a random vote that meant nothing
I have been thinking about what the others said about your play and slept on it. I believe I've been tunneling you. I've been operating on a "guilty until proven innocent" principle which is terrible, since there's about 3/4ths of the town that are innocent. Looking at you from an "innocent until proven guilty" view, your posts read extremely new player. I can't be positive you're not scum, but that doesn't mean I need to tunnel you, since if you are scum, you'll slip up later. Unvote
I still need to ask, what about swishh seemed to be fooling around?
That is not what I meant killjoy and you know that. You might have hurt yourself there with how you twisted my words to fit your question.
No I actually didn't. That was a for real "Is this what this means" question.
Note to self: Void is playing this game really hard. I'm leaning in the direction of that meaning "its a big game and he needs to play hard to complete his win con" as opposed to anything else. Most likely town, possibly neutral although less likely.
KoolKoal: Feel free to take this with a grain of salt since self meta isn't particularly helpful, but I think I get scumread mostly for style over substance, but also for a certain lack of substance over style. It's not so much what I AM posting most of the time (though sometimes that can seem bad) but what I'm NOT posting. I've been told I come to non-obvious conclusions a lot, so when I post, quite a bit of the time there's jumps in logic that people can't follow and they think that's scummy. I get that accusation about a lot of questions I ask specifically. People call them "busy work" when the questions are legit etc.
As far as things to ignore, I can't think of anything. I would suggest you focus less on what I'm doing and more on how I'm doing it. That's probably more likely to be accurate. Like I've just said, what I do tends to come off a little weird, but if you look for how I do it, mindset comes into play and maybe you figure out something useful.
There's been a lot of discussion about my joking/fooling around. Yes - several comments I made early in the game were somewhat silly. But the game didn't seem to be progressing very fast and I always find it interesting to see how people respond to what they perceive to be a new player.
Please explain why this is only a scum mind set option and not a town mind set option.
Is such a bad vote followed by OMGUS something that often comes from a town mindset?
I'm asking you the question. What is your belief?
Wish I had two votes at this point.
Sorry, I was being sarcastic. It doesn't work well in text. The question was meant to imply that I don't believe that often comes from a town mindset. It's distracting and does nothing to help the town.
Would you please point to the post(s) that helped you draw the conclusion that swishh has a scum mind set?
When I attempt to be sarcastic I use [sarcasm]text[/sarcasm] so that others know. The brackets don't do anything since it's not in the BB code for this site.
I have a lot to write... today was action-packed as I saw a bunch of old college buddies from 7am-5:30pm, except I'm still sick and have really bad chills... I'll work on it though, I'm guessing I'll post by tomorrow morning relative to Eastern time.
Would you please point to the post(s) that helped you draw the conclusion that swishh has a scum mind set?
When I attempt to be sarcastic I use [sarcasm]text[/sarcasm] so that others know. The brackets don't do anything since it's not in the BB code for this site.
The post we've been discussing was my main reason for voting, but I can quote it for you, if you'd like.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Looking for a playgroup in/around Jerusalem, Israel. PM with details.
Would you please point to the post(s) that helped you draw the conclusion that swishh has a scum mind set?
When I attempt to be sarcastic I use [sarcasm]text[/sarcasm] so that others know. The brackets don't do anything since it's not in the BB code for this site.
The post we've been discussing was my main reason for voting, but I can quote it for you, if you'd like.
I don't need to see the post again.
I don't like the narrow mindedness that you are showing towards swishh. You're pushing a scum mind set onto swishh based on a post that is more null than anything else. On top of your narrow mindedness you are not supplying a sufficient answer to why it is a scum mind set and would rather use sarcasm than actually answer and then when pressured a little more you give an answer, that while could be indicative of a scum mind set, you refuse to acknowledge that swishh is inexperienced and/or a newb here.
This makes your vote and conviction towards swishh weak and shows that either you are not thinking things through or you're simply pushing swishh as an easy target. (Low hanging fruit... again)
Since that post from swishh have seen anything other posts from swishh that makes you question his alignment?
Would you please point to the post(s) that helped you draw the conclusion that swishh has a scum mind set?
When I attempt to be sarcastic I use [sarcasm]text[/sarcasm] so that others know. The brackets don't do anything since it's not in the BB code for this site.
The post we've been discussing was my main reason for voting, but I can quote it for you, if you'd like.
I don't need to see the post again.
I don't like the narrow mindedness that you are showing towards swishh. You're pushing a scum mind set onto swishh based on a post that is more null than anything else. On top of your narrow mindedness you are not supplying a sufficient answer to why it is a scum mind set and would rather use sarcasm than actually answer and then when pressured a little more you give an answer, that while could be indicative of a scum mind set, you refuse to acknowledge that swishh is inexperienced and/or a newb here.
This makes your vote and conviction towards swishh weak and shows that either you are not thinking things through or you're simply pushing swishh as an easy target. (Low hanging fruit... again)
Since that post from swishh have seen anything other posts from swishh that makes you question his alignment?
Why does it seem to me that anyone using any method you consider "weak" must be scum?
Would you please point to the post(s) that helped you draw the conclusion that swishh has a scum mind set?
When I attempt to be sarcastic I use [sarcasm]text[/sarcasm] so that others know. The brackets don't do anything since it's not in the BB code for this site.
The post we've been discussing was my main reason for voting, but I can quote it for you, if you'd like.
I don't need to see the post again.
I don't like the narrow mindedness that you are showing towards swishh. You're pushing a scum mind set onto swishh based on a post that is more null than anything else. On top of your narrow mindedness you are not supplying a sufficient answer to why it is a scum mind set and would rather use sarcasm than actually answer and then when pressured a little more you give an answer, that while could be indicative of a scum mind set, you refuse to acknowledge that swishh is inexperienced and/or a newb here.
This makes your vote and conviction towards swishh weak and shows that either you are not thinking things through or you're simply pushing swishh as an easy target. (Low hanging fruit... again)
Since that post from swishh have seen anything other posts from swishh that makes you question his alignment?
Why does it seem to me that anyone using any method you consider "weak" must be scum?
I've learned to take a different look at Mafia since I got to see a new perspective of this game. While being "weak" is not a scum tell on it's own there our other aspects that make being "weak" more of a mind set read. AKA a wolf in sheep's clothing.
At this point both Anak's and Lord have presented "weak" reasoning while voting for someone. Anak response was bad and for that reason my vote stays on him. Lord's responses, while being sarcastic, were also poor, but I am taking his word for the moment that his post was indeed sarcastic and I don't believe that Lord would be sarcastic in this scenario if he(she?) were scum.
Why did you put weak in quote marks above? I only did mine the same since you had.
I have been thinking about what the others said about your play and slept on it. I believe I've been tunneling you. I've been operating on a "guilty until proven innocent" principle which is terrible, since there's about 3/4ths of the town that are innocent. Looking at you from an "innocent until proven guilty" view, your posts read extremely new player. I can't be positive you're not scum, but that doesn't mean I need to tunnel you, since if you are scum, you'll slip up later. Unvote
Do you typically start from a "guilty until proven innocent" principle when judging people?
I don't like the narrow mindedness that you are showing towards swishh. You're pushing a scum mind set onto swishh based on a post that is more null than anything else. On top of your narrow mindedness you are not supplying a sufficient answer to why it is a scum mind set and would rather use sarcasm than actually answer and then when pressured a little more you give an answer, that while could be indicative of a scum mind set, you refuse to acknowledge that swishh is inexperienced and/or a newb here.
This makes your vote and conviction towards swishh weak and shows that either you are not thinking things through or you're simply pushing swishh as an easy target. (Low hanging fruit... again)
Since that post from swishh have seen anything other posts from swishh that makes you question his alignment?
To be honest, I haven't really been playing the past few days since I've been sick. The game's developed a lot, and I've only been answering posts directed toward me.
Whether or not swishh is new, I didn't like that post, in the context of the game as it was a few days ago. Now, I have to really catch up to keep my reads current, and my vote may or may not stand where it is. The climate is different, and that post may not stand out as much in light of any new developments. Basically, I need to re-read, and catch up.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Looking for a playgroup in/around Jerusalem, Israel. PM with details.
True: once Rhand called you out on ignoring the content that swishh had provided, you stopped ignoring it. But that doesn't change my question. Why, when writing up post 160 about Lennonmint not providing content, did you quote his post that indeed had no content, while ignoring the post immediately under it that did?
Because it's about as useless as any other post. I only needed one of the recent posts, not all of them. I mean, he says if he was to vote it'd be for swishh... so do it. And "because he seems to fool around alot"? Why not just put "because I feel like it", it's the same amount of information. Which is none.
Okay. I still don't like the initial quote choice, but your explanations have been internally consistent and not overly defensive. I have no serious problems with you on this matter.
I'm pleased to announce I passed my actuary exam and have returned home from vacation. I'll be paying closer attention to what's going on henceforth.
Congrats. I was looking at being an actuary for a while, but it seemed somewhat boring, and all the extra exams were not appealing.
On a game related note, while I am thinking about it: I will be V/LA from Thursday through Sunday of this week. I should be able to get in a post Thursday morning, but will likely not post again until Monday morning.
I'm actually liking Teh JeY's posts so far. She's been posting a lot, and I'm not getting the feeling that she is taking much time to consider her posts before throwing them out there. That strikes me as more of a townie mindset, or a very comfortable scum. The wildcard in this is that she obviously has outside experience.
Why do you say she obviously has outside experience? I have no experience playing with her, but she does mention that she's never played before:
I disagree with this line of reasoning. Tactical "slips" can be very useful to scum.
But that's my whole point. I see this as a subconscious slip, and not a tactical one. As I mentioned before, there are two reasons that together make that I don't think this was a 'tactical slip'. Firstly, because it was disadvantageous for Cythare to backpedal, instead Cythare could have easily counter-attacked Tom for making such an accusation. Secondly, because Cythare would have had to make the judgement whether there would be someone who would make the observation I am making now.
Fair enough. Something to ask him about if he ever comes back.
If I make a concentrated effort to parse this, I think I get fencesitting.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Heh! Consider yourself corrected; more simply put I said that I am in favor of believing the notion going around that Lennon is simply newb, not scummy. However, the obviously does not permanently clear his name, as I can barely think of times when someone is ever completely off hooks.
That's like when you're frustrated with your friend and they have no clue what to do and then when you're telling your friend you wanted them to apologize. Now that you told them to do it, it doesn't mean anything anymore now does it?
But if you want me to ruin such an occasion... Well, you're going to say yes anyway, so. You didn't ask 'why' as much as I would've like to have seen. It felt like you were scratching the surface repetitively.
Of course the fence-sit post went ignored for a while but a person without too many previous posts in the discussion brings it up, followed by two more people without too many previous posts, hardly bandwagoning as opposed to staking a really good claim. Perhaps I'm missing something fishy?
Three people vote for her. Her immediate response is to wonder if she's missing something fishy. There are two options here, given the context isn't fully clear. One, that there's something fishy with her accusers. That's oblique mudslinging. Two, that there's something fishy in her posts that she's missing.
Town shouldn't be wondering if there's something fishy in their posts that's being attacked.
The bolded: If Teh JeY is town, then why wouldn't she want to know what is fishy about her posts when she is not familiar with are meta?
First, how is site meta relevant in this case?
The second is more complicated, and I misworded it slightly. Take the original phrase, "Perhaps I'm missing something fishy?" From this, it can be inferred that there could be something fishy she's not missing. Or, rather, that she believes that there could be something fishy in her post.
It's a guilty mindset. Consider: would you be wondering if there's something scummy in your post?
Do you remember Basic #64 Stuff I Like Mafia Modded by Emo Pinata? The game was created to bring players over from Px2 so they could see what are Mafia Community was like. There play on this site was not very good and came across rather scummy most of the time. It's simply that their meta on Px2 varies in comparison to MTGS. And since Teh JeY comes from another site I would believe their meta to be different from ours and therefore Teh JeY may not believe her posts are fishy.
While I get the point you are coming too I don't see this as just a scum thought process.
I'm actually liking Teh JeY's posts so far. She's been posting a lot, and I'm not getting the feeling that she is taking much time to consider her posts before throwing them out there. That strikes me as more of a townie mindset, or a very comfortable scum. The wildcard in this is that she obviously has outside experience.
Why do you say she obviously has outside experience? I have no experience playing with her, but she does mention that she's never played before:
Forgive me, it's been never since I last played this >_>
I'm surprised it took so long for someone to actually catch/interpret that. AlphaInsidious, as I've seen referenced as simply AI, guess you're just more observant. Nice. Though, have played or not played is not entirely definitive, right? I mean, there were a few claims that I'm new to here, not Mafia.
I have to say, your stream of consciousness posting is making it difficult for me to discern what you mean.
But, can you tell me why you would think RobRoy would be voting Lennon simply because he hadn't posted? Was pretty early in the game, and he wasn't the only one with low or no posts.
Not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing!
Umm... No idea. First thing that popped into my head, really. Decided 'why not'.
The point I was making was that you had nothing to add (supposedly), but then suddenly did not long after, without pointing out the motive you claimed you wanted to see. It was the inconsistency that caught my eye, not the vote.
I'm not entirely sure I follow this. Elaborate for clarity's sake?
Oh, I read it again , I get it now. silly me. I don't know what you want me to add about this having discussed that initial post already, I already said the first post was made for the sake of making a post, of course it's inconsistent. The flak for it however has taught me a valuable lesson.
These are strange points. What does my number of posts have to do with my analysis?
I also don't think you would be so self-aware of if you're being fishy or not as town.
It was an observation, not so much a point - I was saying that the post of mine wasn't brought up until a bit later, but it was brought up by those who haven't posted in between that post and then. So it's not really relevant, I guess! I'll just consider the worth of my observations more before printing them, maybe.
Also fishiness comment was addressed - I wasn't really considering my own posts.
Agreed that her unique posting style has made it less likely to be contrived. And I believe that she believes what she's saying.
But that doesn't make her inconsistent actions any less noteworthy.
...I thought this would make more sense now that the cat's out of the bag (me being new), but I guess not.
The whimsical strawberry nature of your posts aside, I'll need to get this on record. No skirting that you are simply looking for reactions. At the time you voted Cyouni, was it because you felt he was scum?
Since you say 'felt', certainly. Also I was having a lot of fun with that post, your comment made me giggle a bit :> @ strawberries.
I don't like the narrow mindedness that you are showing towards swishh. You're pushing a scum mind set onto swishh based on a post that is more null than anything else. On top of your narrow mindedness you are not supplying a sufficient answer to why it is a scum mind set and would rather use sarcasm than actually answer and then when pressured a little more you give an answer, that while could be indicative of a scum mind set, you refuse to acknowledge that swishh is inexperienced and/or a newb here.
This makes your vote and conviction towards swishh weak and shows that either you are not thinking things through or you're simply pushing swishh as an easy target. (Low hanging fruit... again)
Since that post from swishh have seen anything other posts from swishh that makes you question his alignment?
While his conviction could be consider exaggerated, he had a point for a while without much else activity to go on about. That in of itself is a lame reasoning which doesn't get my hopes up for anything to pin LoT to. Hopefully he has an exciting catch-up post soon, I'm curious.
Santorum asked what you meant by two very vague phrases. (Either Santorum is scum or not = knows you are scum or doesn't.) If he doesn't know, your response was even more vague. Vague is suspicious. I'm suspicious of scum.
If he does know you're scum, his question was more of an inside joke/attempt to peg himself as town. Now if he knows you're scum, then you know he's scum, and you can safely reply in jest or give reasons such as the ones you just have about why you're not obligated to elaborate.
Yeah, call it gut for now. But I have to state that I'm spread real thin with mafia right now, so I may be revising that opinion after I get a chance to reread.
Other people have asked me questions:
EtR: As opposed to the kind that has a vote that counts as two votes, rather than one who must cast two votes.
Rhand: Thanks.
I suppose that is the worse of the two, but what would it matter what type of double voter he is in relation to the claim?
Anak is an experienced player here on this site, but he assumes that this post could only come from scum. That is not a town mind set. He's going for low hanging fruit and hoping it sticks.
You're putting words into my mouth. I say that somethings he did looked scummy, and voted him for it. That doesn't mean I think he is scum, it means he did something I wasn't a fan of, and I wanted to push him a bit to see his reactions to being voted again. That way, I would be able to discern if he was town that just happened to do something that I didn't like, or he was scum that continued to act shady. Applying pressure via voting is not something you only can do against scum, it's not like he was close to being lynched at that point anyway.
For someone who is also experienced, watching me do that should be a pretty easy indicator that I'm pressuring him to see how he responds. You are the pot calling the kettle black, as you are only seeing my vote and reasoning against him as scummy, not bothering to think of a way my vote makes sense from a town perspective.
Calling me out for doing something, then doing that yourself? IGMEOY. OMGUS
Eron, do you believe that Anak is low hanging fruit? That's what I am getting from this post.
No, I was calling Anak's IGMEOY ("Y"ou being Void) an OMGUS IGMEOY since Void had just voted Anak.
I have been thinking about what the others said about your play and slept on it. I believe I've been tunneling you. I've been operating on a "guilty until proven innocent" principle which is terrible, since there's about 3/4ths of the town that are innocent. Looking at you from an "innocent until proven guilty" view, your posts read extremely new player. I can't be positive you're not scum, but that doesn't mean I need to tunnel you, since if you are scum, you'll slip up later. Unvote
Do you typically start from a "guilty until proven innocent" principle when judging people?
This is a good catch by Void. It does feel like going after low hanging fruit.
By your definition, going after any lesser experienced player would be going after low hanging fruit.
Also, it isn't really an OMGUS without a vote. I argued against his reasoning of me. Voting him while saying he was wrong and scum for voting me? That would be OMGUS.
Quote from Void »
You found something scummy about his post, but don't believe him to be scum?
Is it only possible for scum to do scummy things?
Quote from Void »
I think your use of the word “scummy” is inaccurate in the context. Maybe “suspicious” would have been better since you don't believe him to be scum although I don't know how truthful you are being at this point.
So your argument comes down to word choice, based on your notion that my saying he did something scummy means he has to be scum. Had I used suspicious, would you still have come at me like you have?
Quote from Void »
The fact that you used the word “scummy” but don't believe him to be scum paints Lennon into a more negative light than “suspicious” would have. What does not being close to lynch have to do with going after a newb player? It's like your trying to subtlety trying to throw in an excuse that has no real bearing on the discussion at hand.
I really just don't understand it. I said it was scummy, because it was something that I could see scum doing. That doesn't mean he is scum, it means he did something that could have been perceived as scum. Do you see the difference? Not being close to lynch means that a pressure vote is okay because its not like he is close to being speedlynched at that point. It's like your trying to paint everything I do in a negative light, to make me look as bad as possible.
Remember that whole "Only seeing actions from a scum mindset?" You're doing it.
Quote from Void »
I'm the only one seeing your vote and reasoning as scummy? Granted Wessel and Eron did not out right call you scum they still thought the observation good enough to comment on and agree with to an extent. See below:
You could have checked that on your own to verify whether other people agreed with you. By posting that, are you trying to rally other people with you, by showing that you have some support from other people? Or are you calling my attention to the fact that they commented their support for you? Both? Well, if its the second one, I'm fully aware that they said that. However, it was one line comments with some agreement, not a ton to discuss there. You have been posting reasoning, which is why I have been responding to you.
Quote from Void »
What reaction(s) were you expecting to get from Lennon?
Expecting? I wasn't sure, because I could see that response coming from both town and scum, under the right circumstances, so I was hoping to get a response out of him that would help indicate his alignment.
Quote from Void »
I only commented on your lurking because of Basic #59 not because of your play here. I understand having a more lurky playing style since RL has changed how post recently,
Not sure if you are aware, but I haven't played in ~7 months. My playstyle has always been sort of this way, RL hasn't changed anything, I just needed a break. I was trying to explain my style to you, but you're right I was over-defensive there. Like I said, long break, it makes you a bit rusty, and jumpy, on your game back.
Quote from Void »
Do you believe possible that Lennon calmed down because your post where you voted him?
Because of? No, I don't think he did it because of my vote, I think he did it because he had nothing to be afraid of from it, and reacted calmly to it. That means that he didn't have to be afraid of anything, and being new, that means that he is more likely to be town, as new scum are worried about trying not to look like scum. It made him look like he has a clear conscience.
Quote from Void »
I believe your post changed how Lennon was reacting and now that you have unvote Lennon makes me believe the two of you are know more about this game than the rest of the town.
So now you think that both of us are scum? I could have found his reaction to be more townie, and have unvoted him as such. Why specifically is that coaching, especially since if we were scumbuddies, I could have done that out of thread?
Quote from Void »
Then you comment on swishh in a passive way without giving much explanation beyond “Hey, look at what swishh is doing now compared to the beginning. This change in behavior makes swishh look more town to me.”
It was a comment I noticed as I browsed through the thread. I don't understand what you are trying to get at here.
Quote from Wessel »
However, I disagree that such a line of questioning warrants a vote already, and I question why he chose Lennonmint specifically.
I chose him because I was unsure of his alignment, and I saw a situation where I could get a reaction out of him that I thought would help me narrow it down. Obviously I'm not sure of a lot of people's alignment, but I saw a way to help me figure out his, so that's why I picked him.
I believe your post changed how Lennon was reacting and now that you have unvote Lennon makes me believe the two of you are know more about this game than the rest of the town.
So now you think that both of us are scum? I could have found his reaction to be more townie, and have unvoted him as such. Why specifically is that coaching, especially since if we were scumbuddies, I could have done that out of thread?
So the scum have daytalk?
@void: Fair enough, if it's regarding an ongoing game we've reached the limit of our ability to discuss that issue.
I believe your post changed how Lennon was reacting and now that you have unvote Lennon makes me believe the two of you are know more about this game than the rest of the town.
So now you think that both of us are scum? I could have found his reaction to be more townie, and have unvoted him as such. Why specifically is that coaching, especially since if we were scumbuddies, I could have done that out of thread?
I have been thinking about what the others said about your play and slept on it. I believe I've been tunneling you. I've been operating on a "guilty until proven innocent" principle which is terrible, since there's about 3/4ths of the town that are innocent. Looking at you from an "innocent until proven guilty" view, your posts read extremely new player. I can't be positive you're not scum, but that doesn't mean I need to tunnel you, since if you are scum, you'll slip up later. Unvote
Do you typically start from a "guilty until proven innocent" principle when judging people?
You're scum, aren't you Rhand?
No, what makes you think that?
How would asking someone that help us in any way? There's only 1 answer to that question.
Santorum asked what you meant by two very vague phrases. (Either Santorum is scum or not = knows you are scum or doesn't.) If he doesn't know, your response was even more vague. Vague is suspicious. I'm suspicious of scum.
If he does know you're scum, his question was more of an inside joke/attempt to peg himself as town. Now if he knows you're scum, then you know he's scum, and you can safely reply in jest or give reasons such as the ones you just have about why you're not obligated to elaborate.
Santorum asked what you meant by two very vague phrases. (Either Santorum is scum or not = knows you are scum or doesn't.) If he doesn't know, your response was even more vague. Vague is suspicious. I'm suspicious of scum.
If he does know you're scum, his question was more of an inside joke/attempt to peg himself as town. Now if he knows you're scum, then you know he's scum, and you can safely reply in jest or give reasons such as the ones you just have about why you're not obligated to elaborate.
Make sense?
Honestly, no.
Could you try to explain what you are saying better?
"your response was even more vague. Vague is suspicious. I'm suspicious of scum." Why is vague suspicious? Why was that last sentence thrown in there? It reads as if you are using some awkward thought process to arrive at the conclusion of someone being scum due to their being vague.
I believe your post changed how Lennon was reacting and now that you have unvote Lennon makes me believe the two of you are know more about this game than the rest of the town.
So now you think that both of us are scum? I could have found his reaction to be more townie, and have unvoted him as such. Why specifically is that coaching, especially since if we were scumbuddies, I could have done that out of thread?
So the scum have daytalk?
@void: Fair enough, if it's regarding an ongoing game we've reached the limit of our ability to discuss that issue.
Day Chat? I doubt Day Chat with what I am reading from Anak, but I do find the wording from Anak bothersome. It floats around the "if" possibility, but the ending line sounds more fact than a "if" situation.
swishh
Please read the rules before you make an @$$ of yourself with your posts... although it may be too late for that...
Sounds about right.
My original vote was for unvoting while we were still in RVS. I'm not sure why he would bother to do this. Since then he gave me the total cold shoulder and has been acting weird, which makes me think he's actually scum.
So my reason for voting him/calling for his lynch is real, though as usual not fully expressed until later on.
...oh. Apparently I misunderstood your initial vote of him - I thought that you saying "RVS isn't over" indicated that you were doing an RVS vote of him, not that you were voting him for something that you think shouldn't be done during RVS.
Also, "acting weird" is not in any way specific enough that I know why you think Void is scum.
Other people have asked me questions:
EtR: As opposed to the kind that has a vote that counts as two votes, rather than one who must cast two votes.
Rhand: Thanks.
Actually, most of the time I don't care.
Why does people disagreeing with you mean that you're wrong?
I laughed a little bit.
Oh? Do explain.
Alright, then we'll say it's oblique mudslinging.
I've been here for almost 4 years, and I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
If there is a horizontal line code, I'd like to know - I'd use it.
If I make a concentrated effort to parse this, I think I get fencesitting.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Explain how that makes me scum, then.
That means you have to provide what's missing.
[hr]black[/hr] [hr]red[/hr]
makes
Unvote: Tom
I guess I didn't ignore it?
It doesn't. But Lennon is either scum or he isn't, so one of the two disagreeing groups is wrong. What I'm saying is that I'm not afraid to say "Yeah, I totally had the wrong read on Lennon" if my mind is changed. Right now, I'm trying to figure out if I'm being blinded by what I thought was bad play or if I'm right and he is scum.
True: once Rhand called you out on ignoring the content that swishh had provided, you stopped ignoring it. But that doesn't change my question. Why, when writing up post 160 about Lennonmint not providing content, did you quote his post that indeed had no content, while ignoring the post immediately under it that did?
Because it's about as useless as any other post. I only needed one of the recent posts, not all of them. I mean, he says if he was to vote it'd be for swishh... so do it. And "because he seems to fool around alot"? Why not just put "because I feel like it", it's the same amount of information. Which is none.
I'm asking you the question. What is your belief?
Wish I had two votes at this point.
Do you remember Basic #64 Stuff I Like Mafia Modded by Emo Pinata? The game was created to bring players over from Px2 so they could see what are Mafia Community was like. There play on this site was not very good and came across rather scummy most of the time. It's simply that their meta on Px2 varies in comparison to MTGS. And since Teh JeY comes from another site I would believe their meta to be different from ours and therefore Teh JeY may not believe her posts are fishy.
While I get the point you are coming too I don't see this as just a scum thought process.
Wessel
958 is three digits from the Zip Code that live in. It was randomly generated as a screen name for me a long time ago and it stuck for while. I just got lucky on this that no one had claimed “Void” prior to me.
That is not what I meant killjoy and you know that. You might have hurt yourself there with how you twisted my words to fit your question.
His mind set is more present than the others.
Eron, do you believe that Anak is low hanging fruit? That's what I am getting from this post.
I'm not reading Lennon as flailing so much as I am reading Lennon as a complete and utter newb. I have not seen anything from Lennon that points towards him being scum or town at the moment.
You found something scummy about his post, but don't believe him to be scum? I think your use of the word “scummy” is inaccurate in the context. Maybe “suspicious” would have been better since you don't believe him to be scum although I don't know how truthful you are being at this point. The fact that you used the word “scummy” but don't believe him to be scum paints Lennon into a more negative light than “suspicious” would have. What does not being close to lynch have to do with going after a newb player? It's like your trying to subtlety trying to throw in an excuse that has no real bearing on the discussion at hand.
I'm the only one seeing your vote and reasoning as scummy? Granted Wessel and Eron did not out right call you scum they still thought the observation good enough to comment on and agree with to an extent. See below:
Re: IGMEOY, Are implying that you are low hanging fruit? Why do you believe that you are?
What reaction(s) were you expecting to get from Lennon?
I only commented on your lurking because of Basic #59 not because of your play here. I understand having a more lurky playing style since RL has changed how post recently, but why you decide to defend yourself from an accusation that was not being pressed against you in this game has rattled my brain some. You mentioned how Lennon was quick to be defensive, but then you turn around and do it yourself when you aren't being accused of lurking. I also never said that your lurking was a scum tell in your books, but at the end of Basic #59 you pointed out how lurking needs to be dealt with. Here is that post as a reminder:
Do you believe possible that Lennon calmed down because your post where you voted him? I've reread the post a few times now and while you are being accusatory towards Lennon it is also being read as subtle coaching in the process. I believe your post changed how Lennon was reacting and now that you have unvote Lennon makes me believe the two of you are know more about this game than the rest of the town.
Then you comment on swishh in a passive way without giving much explanation beyond “Hey, look at what swishh is doing now compared to the beginning. This change in behavior makes swishh look more town to me.”
Sorry, I was being sarcastic. It doesn't work well in text. The question was meant to imply that I don't believe that often comes from a town mindset. It's distracting and does nothing to help the town.
i was trying to add content to why i would vote for him and not just cast a random vote that meant nothing
I have to say, your stream of consciousness posting is making it difficult for me to discern what you mean.
But, can you tell me why you would think RobRoy would be voting Lennon simply because he hadn't posted? Was pretty early in the game, and he wasn't the only one with low or no posts.
The point I was making was that you had nothing to add (supposedly), but then suddenly did not long after, without pointing out the motive you claimed you wanted to see. It was the inconsistency that caught my eye, not the vote.
These are strange points. What does my number of posts have to do with my analysis?
I also don't think you would be so self-aware of if you're being fishy or not as town.
Why do you say she obviously has outside experience? I have no experience playing with her, but she does mention that she's never played before:
Agreed that her unique posting style has made it less likely to be contrived. And I believe that she believes what she's saying.
But that doesn't make her inconsistent actions any less noteworthy.
Wessel had a lot of very interesting things to say in this post, and I found myself agreeing with much of it. I do disagree with his conclusions on Teh_JeY at this juncture however.
Still, goodposting.
The whimsical strawberry nature of your posts aside, I'll need to get this on record. No skirting that you are simply looking for reactions. At the time you voted Cyouni, was it because you felt he was scum?
That's fair enough. That perspective at least helps me make sense of the dichotomy I saw.
I fail...to see the flail. What about his reactions felt like scum flailing?
Grats!
Thanks.
Saying that swishh was fooling around felt like he was struggling to find a valid reason to vote.
For mafia, throwing things out to see what sticks.
I have been thinking about what the others said about your play and slept on it. I believe I've been tunneling you. I've been operating on a "guilty until proven innocent" principle which is terrible, since there's about 3/4ths of the town that are innocent. Looking at you from an "innocent until proven guilty" view, your posts read extremely new player. I can't be positive you're not scum, but that doesn't mean I need to tunnel you, since if you are scum, you'll slip up later.
Unvote
I still need to ask, what about swishh seemed to be fooling around?
No I actually didn't. That was a for real "Is this what this means" question.
Note to self: Void is playing this game really hard. I'm leaning in the direction of that meaning "its a big game and he needs to play hard to complete his win con" as opposed to anything else. Most likely town, possibly neutral although less likely.
There's been a lot of discussion about my joking/fooling around. Yes - several comments I made early in the game were somewhat silly. But the game didn't seem to be progressing very fast and I always find it interesting to see how people respond to what they perceive to be a new player.
Would you please point to the post(s) that helped you draw the conclusion that swishh has a scum mind set?
Thanks!
I have a lot to write... today was action-packed as I saw a bunch of old college buddies from 7am-5:30pm, except I'm still sick and have really bad chills... I'll work on it though, I'm guessing I'll post by tomorrow morning relative to Eastern time.
¤.†.¤ The OceanLink ¤.†.¤
The post we've been discussing was my main reason for voting, but I can quote it for you, if you'd like.
I don't need to see the post again.
I don't like the narrow mindedness that you are showing towards swishh. You're pushing a scum mind set onto swishh based on a post that is more null than anything else. On top of your narrow mindedness you are not supplying a sufficient answer to why it is a scum mind set and would rather use sarcasm than actually answer and then when pressured a little more you give an answer, that while could be indicative of a scum mind set, you refuse to acknowledge that swishh is inexperienced and/or a newb here.
This makes your vote and conviction towards swishh weak and shows that either you are not thinking things through or you're simply pushing swishh as an easy target. (Low hanging fruit... again)
Since that post from swishh have seen anything other posts from swishh that makes you question his alignment?
I've learned to take a different look at Mafia since I got to see a new perspective of this game. While being "weak" is not a scum tell on it's own there our other aspects that make being "weak" more of a mind set read. AKA a wolf in sheep's clothing.
At this point both Anak's and Lord have presented "weak" reasoning while voting for someone. Anak response was bad and for that reason my vote stays on him. Lord's responses, while being sarcastic, were also poor, but I am taking his word for the moment that his post was indeed sarcastic and I don't believe that Lord would be sarcastic in this scenario if he(she?) were scum.
Why did you put weak in quote marks above? I only did mine the same since you had.
Do you typically start from a "guilty until proven innocent" principle when judging people?
To be honest, I haven't really been playing the past few days since I've been sick. The game's developed a lot, and I've only been answering posts directed toward me.
Whether or not swishh is new, I didn't like that post, in the context of the game as it was a few days ago. Now, I have to really catch up to keep my reads current, and my vote may or may not stand where it is. The climate is different, and that post may not stand out as much in light of any new developments. Basically, I need to re-read, and catch up.
Okay. I still don't like the initial quote choice, but your explanations have been internally consistent and not overly defensive. I have no serious problems with you on this matter.
Congrats. I was looking at being an actuary for a while, but it seemed somewhat boring, and all the extra exams were not appealing.
On a game related note, while I am thinking about it: I will be V/LA from Thursday through Sunday of this week. I should be able to get in a post Thursday morning, but will likely not post again until Monday morning.
I had missed that. She seemed too competent to be a first-time player, which is what I was basing my statement on.
Fair enough. Something to ask him about if he ever comes back.
Grats!
Bold brackets slightly modified for my own amusement. I addressed my 'fishiness comment' in an earlier post for the record.
...What is there to explain, I blatantly said why I wanted to pretend I said yes.
Oh, you did address it. My first comment is void then, isn't it? -leaves it in there anyway-. Call it... whatever you want?
Heh! Consider yourself corrected; more simply put I said that I am in favor of believing the notion going around that Lennon is simply newb, not scummy. However, the obviously does not permanently clear his name, as I can barely think of times when someone is ever completely off hooks.
That's like when you're frustrated with your friend and they have no clue what to do and then when you're telling your friend you wanted them to apologize. Now that you told them to do it, it doesn't mean anything anymore now does it?
But if you want me to ruin such an occasion... Well, you're going to say yes anyway, so. You didn't ask 'why' as much as I would've like to have seen. It felt like you were scratching the surface repetitively.
This is kind of funny (to me) since:
I'm surprised it took so long for someone to actually catch/interpret that. AlphaInsidious, as I've seen referenced as simply AI, guess you're just more observant. Nice. Though, have played or not played is not entirely definitive, right? I mean, there were a few claims that I'm new to here, not Mafia.
Not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing!
Umm... No idea. First thing that popped into my head, really. Decided 'why not'.
I'm not entirely sure I follow this. Elaborate for clarity's sake?
Oh, I read it again , I get it now. silly me. I don't know what you want me to add about this having discussed that initial post already, I already said the first post was made for the sake of making a post, of course it's inconsistent. The flak for it however has taught me a valuable lesson.
It was an observation, not so much a point - I was saying that the post of mine wasn't brought up until a bit later, but it was brought up by those who haven't posted in between that post and then. So it's not really relevant, I guess! I'll just consider the worth of my observations more before printing them, maybe.
Also fishiness comment was addressed - I wasn't really considering my own posts.
...I thought this would make more sense now that the cat's out of the bag (me being new), but I guess not.
Since you say 'felt', certainly. Also I was having a lot of fun with that post, your comment made me giggle a bit :> @ strawberries.
While his conviction could be consider exaggerated, he had a point for a while without much else activity to go on about. That in of itself is a lame reasoning which doesn't get my hopes up for anything to pin LoT to. Hopefully he has an exciting catch-up post soon, I'm curious.
¤.†.¤ The OceanLink ¤.†.¤
this*
;_;
¤.†.¤ The OceanLink ¤.†.¤
Sorry, Mr. Santorum, but I cannot answer this question at the moment.
Anyone else feel funny about this exchange?
It's something that cannot be discussed per Mafia Council rules. Please do not poke and prod at the situation.
Is that supposed to be an intimidation tactic?
Unvote
Vote Void
I cannot discuss ongoing games, swishh.
No not annoyed. I'll explain what I saw.
Santorum asked what you meant by two very vague phrases. (Either Santorum is scum or not = knows you are scum or doesn't.) If he doesn't know, your response was even more vague. Vague is suspicious. I'm suspicious of scum.
If he does know you're scum, his question was more of an inside joke/attempt to peg himself as town. Now if he knows you're scum, then you know he's scum, and you can safely reply in jest or give reasons such as the ones you just have about why you're not obligated to elaborate.
I suppose that is the worse of the two, but what would it matter what type of double voter he is in relation to the claim?
Just wanted to make a line. So cool.
No, I was calling Anak's IGMEOY ("Y"ou being Void) an OMGUS IGMEOY since Void had just voted Anak.
Congratulations. I'm not sure what an actuary exam is, but it sounds important.
Do you feel as though he wasn't?
You're scum, aren't you Rhand?
By your definition, going after any lesser experienced player would be going after low hanging fruit.
Also, it isn't really an OMGUS without a vote. I argued against his reasoning of me. Voting him while saying he was wrong and scum for voting me? That would be OMGUS.
Is it only possible for scum to do scummy things?
So your argument comes down to word choice, based on your notion that my saying he did something scummy means he has to be scum. Had I used suspicious, would you still have come at me like you have?
I really just don't understand it. I said it was scummy, because it was something that I could see scum doing. That doesn't mean he is scum, it means he did something that could have been perceived as scum. Do you see the difference? Not being close to lynch means that a pressure vote is okay because its not like he is close to being speedlynched at that point. It's like your trying to paint everything I do in a negative light, to make me look as bad as possible.
Remember that whole "Only seeing actions from a scum mindset?" You're doing it.
You could have checked that on your own to verify whether other people agreed with you. By posting that, are you trying to rally other people with you, by showing that you have some support from other people? Or are you calling my attention to the fact that they commented their support for you? Both? Well, if its the second one, I'm fully aware that they said that. However, it was one line comments with some agreement, not a ton to discuss there. You have been posting reasoning, which is why I have been responding to you.
Expecting? I wasn't sure, because I could see that response coming from both town and scum, under the right circumstances, so I was hoping to get a response out of him that would help indicate his alignment.
Not sure if you are aware, but I haven't played in ~7 months. My playstyle has always been sort of this way, RL hasn't changed anything, I just needed a break. I was trying to explain my style to you, but you're right I was over-defensive there. Like I said, long break, it makes you a bit rusty, and jumpy, on your game back.
Because of? No, I don't think he did it because of my vote, I think he did it because he had nothing to be afraid of from it, and reacted calmly to it. That means that he didn't have to be afraid of anything, and being new, that means that he is more likely to be town, as new scum are worried about trying not to look like scum. It made him look like he has a clear conscience.
So now you think that both of us are scum? I could have found his reaction to be more townie, and have unvoted him as such. Why specifically is that coaching, especially since if we were scumbuddies, I could have done that out of thread?
It was a comment I noticed as I browsed through the thread. I don't understand what you are trying to get at here.
I chose him because I was unsure of his alignment, and I saw a situation where I could get a reaction out of him that I thought would help me narrow it down. Obviously I'm not sure of a lot of people's alignment, but I saw a way to help me figure out his, so that's why I picked him.
So the scum have daytalk?
@void: Fair enough, if it's regarding an ongoing game we've reached the limit of our ability to discuss that issue.
FoS Rick Santorum
Vote: Anaklusmos
Why
No, what makes you think that?
How would asking someone that help us in any way? There's only 1 answer to that question.
Make sense?
I'm leaving the site, so sorry, Xander.
See y'all 'round the internet.
Tired of corporate corruption ruining your favorite MtG site?
Come join ours!!
We even have Mafia!!
Replacement pm going out...I apologize for any inconvenience...
The GJ way path to no lynching:
But am sleep deprived as all hell, just kind of a state of the union thing that I still exist in this game and don't need replaced, heh.
Should have some words either after a nap tonight or come morning.
Honestly, no.
Could you try to explain what you are saying better?
"your response was even more vague. Vague is suspicious. I'm suspicious of scum." Why is vague suspicious? Why was that last sentence thrown in there? It reads as if you are using some awkward thought process to arrive at the conclusion of someone being scum due to their being vague.
Day Chat? I doubt Day Chat with what I am reading from Anak, but I do find the wording from Anak bothersome. It floats around the "if" possibility, but the ending line sounds more fact than a "if" situation.
swishh
Please read the rules before you make an @$$ of yourself with your posts... although it may be too late for that...