|
Day One
Jan 30, 2008 15:47:15 GMT -5
Post by sachertorte on Jan 30, 2008 15:47:15 GMT -5
Vote Count:
Greedy Smurf (2) : nesta, hawkeyeop koldanar (6) : Diomedes, diggitcamara, RoOsh, drainbead, piratepete, atarus NAF1138 (1) : Cookies RoOsh (1) : Kat piratepete (2) : Hockey Monkey, koldanar No Lynch (1) : Pleonast
|
|
Death By Irony
FGM
The Former Mandate of Heaven/Current Gastard Night Mod
I'm my own mind-altering substance!
Posts: 109
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jan 30, 2008 16:22:18 GMT -5
Post by Death By Irony on Jan 30, 2008 16:22:18 GMT -5
Confucianism, among other things, emphasizes ritual and formality, especially in dress. Men and women alike were expected to wear their hair neatly pulled back--the rebellious Yellow Turbans demonstrated their defiance of the rule of the Han by having their hair loose, tying it up in the scarf for practical purposes.
Additionally, officials of the court wore decorative hula-hoop-like belts and carried jade rulers (to jot notes on and to smack political rivals with, if necessary) and decorative, jeweled hats. Other scholars wore a hat whose function was similar to the western mortarboard, but the shape more closely resembled that of a faucet tap (or, perhaps, a single propeller). The emperor wore a golden grown with beads hanging down from the front, for no-one was allowed to gaze upon the countenance of the Son of Heaven directly.
Ancient China, being largely an agricultural society, suffered by and large from a distressing lack of pants. (In case you were wondering, the other Mandate is handling vote counts while this one is vacationing in Orlando. For some reason the parental units think that it's a wonderful thing to have me home, despite the fact that we tend to drive each other nuts.)
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 30, 2008 16:38:13 GMT -5
Post by Drain Bead on Jan 30, 2008 16:38:13 GMT -5
I was AFK for most of yesterday because of work and then going out afterwards, but things have calmed down considerably. I just have one thing to add...
If my instincts are right, and Koldanar is scum, my eyes are on Kat after that, for being the one to break the tie between him and Roosh, for reasons I found to be somewhat iffy.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 30, 2008 17:15:59 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Jan 30, 2008 17:15:59 GMT -5
I was AFK for most of yesterday because of work and then going out afterwards, but things have calmed down considerably. I just have one thing to add... If my instincts are right, and Koldanar is scum, my eyes are on Kat after that, for being the one to break the tie between him and Roosh, for reasons I found to be somewhat iffy. I think Kat's case against Roosh is pretty solid. Not solid enough to vote along with him right now, but solid. Even Roosh thinks it is solid. What specifically do you find iffy?
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 30, 2008 17:17:30 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Jan 30, 2008 17:17:30 GMT -5
NETA: That should read "Not solid enough to vote for him right now..."
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 30, 2008 18:41:15 GMT -5
Post by Drain Bead on Jan 30, 2008 18:41:15 GMT -5
Kat said:
When you metagame someone to be scum by pointing out something he's doing differently, it helps if he was town all the times that he acted how he did previously. If anything, when he was scum he was more levelheaded and less paranoid and misinterpreting than he was when he was town. He tends to be one of the more paranoid townies I've seen, and more reasonable as scum because of the lack of paranoia (no, it's not paranoia if they're really out to get you!), so I'm thinking that while you have an argument that he's acting erratically, drawing the conclusion that he's necessarily scum because of that is the wrong one to make, since when he was scum he did not act that way.
|
|
Gir!
FGM
EVIL Demon Goddess Mod
What? Kat is sweet and innocent!
Posts: 691
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jan 30, 2008 19:30:06 GMT -5
Post by Gir! on Jan 30, 2008 19:30:06 GMT -5
Do you think so? Because I was finding his posts reminding me of Bladerunner Roosh were he was scum, and very very different than Inara Roosh (where I had perfect knowledge, which may make a difference).
And anyway, I didn't break a tie with my vote, I caused a tie.
And...
Damn you, Roosh! Damn you to hell! All that rereading and matching up who said whatses, wasted.
Unvote Roosh
|
|
Koldanar
Mome Rath
[on:I survived the apocralypse!][of:Into the void, go I]
Posts: 4
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jan 30, 2008 19:31:54 GMT -5
Post by Koldanar on Jan 30, 2008 19:31:54 GMT -5
I'll take the time to go back and at least address some of the reasons for voting for me, and get over my lurking self Another person that struck me as suspicious was koldanar. As has been stated by others, his reasoning for voting for Roosh seem opportunistic and scapegoatish. Koldanar gets a vote or two for lurking, so he jumps in and votes for Roosh, with his reasoning being "he's talking a lot" and "he has the most votes." In retrospect, it does seem rather opportunistic. At that point in the game, he was the most heard from, and I had what I thought at the time was more read on him than another. Looking back now, I just saw him more; read my last post about why I unvoted (it worries me it could be a tactic to belay suspicion, but I don't want to risk getting a power role just in case this early). I'm having a hell of a time w/out at least a few lynches having already happened. (I never seem to pay attention to mafia games till a few days in) I felt at that point I was lurking too much, and I needed to come out of my shell and try to participate. Voting right off the getgo? Bad move. In addition, when he posts about Denouepete, he says: You seem to be jumping on the bandwagon quickly there, esp. since you just joined the game (you did replace Denoument correct?). Something to hide? So he calls out Pete for jumping on a bandwagon quickly, but that's exactly what he did earlier with Roosh. It's not just the bandwagon; I need to go back and see what he's said (if anything) in his postings since he started. A good place for a new to the game scum to hide would be on a bandwagon behind someone that a good portion of the players have their attention already on. In a very early post of his, he voted, then changed to me when popular opinion swung my way. All of this after just entering the game. Has he said much since? One post on page 9, and I don't see much there except for a few comments at people about his behavior.
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jan 30, 2008 19:53:12 GMT -5
Post by Merestil Haye on Jan 30, 2008 19:53:12 GMT -5
Well that's upset the applecart.
I guess in the light of Roosh's grand defence post, it would be better to not vote Roosh, so for now, I won't be voting for him.
Which leaves me in a cleft stick, because I don't actually get any scummy vibes from anyone else. We still have something over a day hours or so until the deadline, so I'll sleep on it and do some reading tomorrow evening.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 30, 2008 22:46:01 GMT -5
Post by nesta on Jan 30, 2008 22:46:01 GMT -5
I was hoping my vote for Peasant Smurf would bring him out of the woodwork, but it seems to have had the opposite effect. While he's still near the top of my suspicion list due to his "I'm here" posts that isn't strong enough to lynch him right now, and time is getting short.
Unvote Smurf
I would still like to hear more from you. If you don't think you can continue please ask for a sub. I would encourage you to stick with it if you can, but please up the participation a little.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 31, 2008 1:00:54 GMT -5
Post by Boozahol Squid, P.I. on Jan 31, 2008 1:00:54 GMT -5
Count me in as one of the people who could easily jump on a Day 1 no-lynch bandwagon. The factions have small nibbles of extra info that the rest of us don't have. By not infusing our little system with the additional insight brought by a lynch, we potentially extend the collective scums' lack of info, and we potentially save ourselves from choosing poorly. Great idea, Cookies. While this group of players has a nasty tendency to 'lynch for information', the idea of 'no-lynching for no information' is even worse. We've already given the scum information today (Roosh being the anti-Shu doc), as well as given them a chance to send out signals to each other. No you want to turn this game into a night start, with three scumkills per night? We may not hit a scum with a lynch today. But the upside of doing so makes a no-lynch a patently anti-town move.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 31, 2008 1:04:55 GMT -5
Post by nesta on Jan 31, 2008 1:04:55 GMT -5
In point of fact, I don't actually think a no-lynch would be a bad thing in this game. Actually, I think no-lynching should be a more frequently employed option in most games - more so in this one, with the possibility of cross-kills. And I think that generally, if you're going to no-lynch, you should do it early in the game - preferably on Day One, when you have the least information. Had the town no-lynched Day One instead of whichever Day we no-lynched in the Associates game, it would have been a much better choice, especially since we got extra info from every Night kill. I've been giving the idea of a no-lynch some thought. My gut reaction is usually that it's a bad idea, but you do make some valid points about doing it when our information is limited. After some thought, though, I still don't think Today is a good time for a no-lynch. I have a number of problems with no-lynches in general, but I really have a negative reaction to them on Day 1. The early Days are critical for gathering information that can be used later in the game. I'll go so far as to say that short of clear mistakes by the scum the game is usually won or lost based on how well the town is able to make the scum commit to positions early in the game that can then be compared to actions and contradictory positions later in the game. To take this to a somewhat extreme, let's say we had all decided not to lynch anyone Today and Tomorrow. There would still be debate about who is scum, and about game mechanics, but if there wasn't the threat of a lynch the accusations would be weak and the talk of game mechanics would be much less important since they wouldn't apply for Days to come. In the end we would end up with much less information going into Day 3 than we would have if everyone felt pressure that someone was going to be lynched so we had better do our best to get it right. An example would be the discussion of the different early deadline ideas. If we had already decided not to lynch anyone Today would that have happened? That generated a lot of discussion, and is good information to look back on later. Also, for better or worse, would the Roosh discussion have happened? That also generated a lot of good discussion. One reason I was willing to consider a no-lynch for Today was that we've already had a lot of discussion, so maybe my main point is moot, but if a no-lynch movement takes off Today we'll lose the frantic discussion that usually happens as the deadline approaches. It will be much easier for everyone, scum and town alike, to simply get behind the no-lynch and wait to see what happens. In the end we lose information that way, and we'll need all we can get later in the game. I'm considering voting for a no lynch, for Day 1 only. The main drawback is that we won't get information from how players vote for each other. But since the Factions are almost in as much darkness as we are, that's not a huge disadvantage for toDay. So for now: vote (No Lynch) There's more of a drawback than not seeing who voted for whom. The votes for or against scum matter much less in this game than in ones with only one scum faction. Perhaps you meant this in the post I quoted above, it's a little ambiguous, but the real information is why someone voted or didn't vote. This is very valuable information and I don't think we should dismiss it so casually. I can see the argument for a no-lynch. My first thought on the matter was that with a completely random vote we have a 30% chance of catching scum. On the face that's not very good. If our chances are significantly less than 50% it doesn't seem like a good enough chance to justify taking it. My problem with this is that the lynch isn't random. We have information to base it on. Even if it were random the information we gain through the lynch increases our chances Tomorrow, and the next Day, etc. Also, I made the point in my earlier reply to you about no-lynching that we can't compare the chances of our lynching scum to that of scum cross-killing scum. Our motives are different. We are trying to lynch scum and there are only 6/20 of them. They are trying to kill town and there are 14/20 of us. Just as we have to pick out the scummiest of everyone, all they have to do is pick out the towniest, and they have a much larger pool to choose from. I won't be surprised if scum are cross-killed by other scum, but I won't be surprised if they aren't, and if that happens and we don't lynch we are left with much less information than if we had lynched someone.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 31, 2008 1:08:31 GMT -5
Post by Greedy Smurf on Jan 31, 2008 1:08:31 GMT -5
Hey guys. Apologies for my absence the last couple of days. (Presuming anyone noticed that is) A combination of a long weekend (gotta love Australia Day) and being a bit under the weather has conspired to keep me away. By my reckoning I have 3 pages to read to catch up, so will do so over the course of this afternoon and tonight and post something hopefully sensible and maybe even useful once I have done that.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 31, 2008 1:09:51 GMT -5
Post by Greedy Smurf on Jan 31, 2008 1:09:51 GMT -5
And upon a quick preview I noticed I was missed. Hi Nesta ;D I hope to have your faith restored later tonight
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 31, 2008 2:24:57 GMT -5
Post by Greedy Smurf on Jan 31, 2008 2:24:57 GMT -5
Apologies for the triple post. But I have finished a read through of the last 3 pages.
I was actually starting to be convinced that Roosh was scum, before his "don't know what to call it" post - I'm not sure that satisfied me completley, so I will be keeping an eye on him.
My thoughts then turned to Pete, mainly due to Tragic's posts though. I hate magic bag posts, and the newbie claimed raised a flag, but then I recalled I had said similiar things in my first couple of games (townie in the first one), and almost got lynched for it too, so have now discounted that as a scum tell in this case.
The thing that has twigged me in the last page though is Pleonast, voting for a no-lynch. Not wanting to rehash that whole argument, but I find that highly questionable and so I Vote Pleonast
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 31, 2008 6:23:31 GMT -5
Post by CatInASuit on Jan 31, 2008 6:23:31 GMT -5
So with only a couple of days to go what have we learned from Day 1.
Well Roosh has raised speculation in a roundabout way that he is "Zhang Bao".
Whether he is or not and whether he currently has any power or not is a matter for debate.
His deliberate "look at me, I'm a scum act" has had taken up a fair chunk of the Day. Yes, Roosh, I voted for you because you lied in your defence and you know what we should do to liars.
Ho Hum.
Currently it looks like koldanar will be lynched if only because he is the other front runner. So now, to have a look at the other people.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 31, 2008 8:42:41 GMT -5
Post by CatInASuit on Jan 31, 2008 8:42:41 GMT -5
@ CiaS and hawkeyeop: re. Magic Bag: Sorry, if tragic had some clever strategy, she certainly didn't let me know what it was. Which could be interpreted as a weakness of substitution in general, I suppose, since one rôle doesn't have access to constant information, but I'm not protesting my chance to play! Even if you found it suspicious, though (and I can see why), I don't see how it can still have much bearing on your analysis, unless one of the rôles has some kind of information-gathering power, which none seem to do. re. citing others' analysis: Unlike tragic, I in fact am new to this game. That doesn't excuse incongruous behaviour, but possibly the fact that I haven't noticed any scum-tells independently. I hardly think it's necessarily scummy to primarily assess other people's arguments and judge based on them. Hmm, well piratepete, you were second of my list of suspects for reasons already given and this post does little to assuage my instincts. So you say that even if the Magic Bag TM it is suspicious, it should not have much bearing on analysis. Denouement said she had some good tricks for finding scum in this situation but said nothing. Prevarication and obfuscation are more likely to be scum tools than town and this is what her actions remind me of. It is not scummy to use someone's arguments to bolster your own in placing your vote. But to twice place a vote citing only someone else's work is scummy. Once could be considered newbie, twice less so. If you vote for someone, there should be a reason for it and these are not things you have provided. So until someone else looks scummier. vote piratepete
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 31, 2008 8:58:00 GMT -5
Post by CatInASuit on Jan 31, 2008 8:58:00 GMT -5
Storyteller: Your Quote: every single time someone has accused me of doing something scummy using some variation on the phrase "you're a good player" or "you're a better player than that," said accuser has turned out to be scum. My Response However, its a pretty strong statement to say that every time someone brings it up, they are scum. How was I rephrasing your words? Should I have included that this only occurs in reference to you? After all, as you said in your own words when someone accuses you of this, they are invariably scum, which is of course incorrect. As such, your original and absolute statement by itself is scummy. I understand your feelings on the end point of view, but on that we shall have to disagree.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 31, 2008 10:31:07 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Jan 31, 2008 10:31:07 GMT -5
I think a reasonable person, reading my quote and your response, will recognize the rephrase, so I'm not going to bother with detail.
I said in my own words that when someone has accused me of this in past games, they have been scum. Which is course not incorrect, but an accurate description of my own observations from previous games. It was not, nor was it intended to be, predictive.
How so? I await explanation beyond this unsupported statement.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 31, 2008 10:31:28 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Jan 31, 2008 10:31:28 GMT -5
So, my much-delayed analysis of the votes against Koldanar. I’ll start with the following statement: my subjective, pre-research impression of the bandwagon that started on Koldanar was that it was a bit undermotivated. It certainly did not seem to me that there was evidence against Koldanar sufficient to warrant the flood of votes that came his way.
Now, obviously, some of that is likely townies looking for a hook. But I’m going to work under the hypothesis that at least one of the Koldanar voters is scum. This is a temporary hypothesis, active for the purposes of this analysis only, but I think it’s a not-unreasonable supposition. Someone said that in this game, we’re really looking for a bunch of serial killers, and I think that’s exactly right, and the fundamental way in which this game differs from others. I truly believe that the scum in this game will support and protect their respective partners only to a very small degree; for each individual scum player, this is an individual game, and the optimal strategy to use is an “anyone but me” strategy.
This emphatically does not mean lurking, per se; pure lurkers are in danger of being mod-killed. Plus, since at the outset of the game, any given scum is at risk of being killed by any of three Night killers who do not know his/her identity, lurking is a good way of drawing attention from Night killers (Serial Killers have, historically, targeted lurkers or relative lurkers).
So what a scum player needs to do in this game is participate enough to be noticed, but not controversially enough to be an early lynch target.
A few games ago, someone proposed a simple method for looking at the game: ask, what do the scum want us to do?. In this game, each individual scum wants us to do one thing and one thing only - lynch anyone but him/her. This requires an alternate target, of course.
But it’s not enough. Thing is, early on, Roosh was getting a lot of votes. From the standpoint of Scum X, this is good, because a vote for Roosh is NOT a vote for Scum X. But it’s still not good enough. Because if everyone is concentrating on Roosh, then there’s the danger that, at the eleventh hour, Roosh will role claim or someone will get nervous about the bandwagon that’s developing. This leads to a last minute, chaotic rearrangement of votes, and this is the worst thing that can happen to Scum X, because in the chaos, he or she might wind up at the top of the list.
So if you’re Scum X, you need a second target, so that if the bandwagon on Roosh dissipates, there’s a ready-made alternative candidate to keep the heat off of you.
That’s Koldanar.
So that’s why I believe that the rapid and largely-unmotivated buildup of votes on him was at least partly scum-driven. Specifics to follow under separate cover.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 31, 2008 10:38:19 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on Jan 31, 2008 10:38:19 GMT -5
nesta, the Factions are each trying to kill 18/20 of the players. ToDay, when all the Factions have two players, targeting another Faction is as useful as targeting a Villager*. This won't be true once a Faction player has been killed, since targeting a singleton Faction results in a block. As for looking at information gained voting, don't forget that the Factions have little more information than Peasants: only the identity of their Faction-mate. We're not going to find accidental displays of extra information that we would normally use to catch scum. As I consider who to vote for, I have to weigh the costs/benefits of lynching versus the costs/benefits of lynching no one. I'm not confident enough in anyone's scumminess at this moment to vote to lynch. So I vote to lynch no one. In my opinion, lynching no one is a useful option toDay. The thing that has twigged me in the last page though is Pleonast, voting for a no-lynch. Not wanting to rehash that whole argument, but I find that highly questionable and so I Vote Pleonast ((color removed)) And I find your vote for me very opportunistic. * Since no one has suggested another term, this is mine for any player who wins when all the Factions are dead.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 31, 2008 10:53:58 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Jan 31, 2008 10:53:58 GMT -5
Smurf; your posts read pretty suspiciously of waffling and spotlight avoidance to me. I was actually starting to be convinced that Roosh was scum, before his "don't know what to call it" post - I'm not sure that satisfied me completley, so I will be keeping an eye on him. "I almost thought he was scum, but now I don't, but I'm not completely sure, so don't hold me responsible for any particular position on the subject, OK?" "Also, I want to mention this thing that someone did that I thought might be scummy, but it's not, at least I don't think so, but I'll bring it up right now just to remind you all that some people think it's scummy. But I don't. So if piratepete gets lynched and is town, remember I said he wasn't scummy. But if he gets lynched and is scum, remember I pointed this out." "Ah, but Pleonast has expressed an unpopular opinion that a lot of people will oppose in knee-jerk fashion, so I'll oppose it too, but I won't give any reasons why, and I won't explain why Pleonast's vote for a no-lynch, which draws a considerable amount of attention to him and has no chance of succeeding because people oppose a no-lynch on principle even when it's a useful idea, makes any kind of sense for a scum trying to hide from attention. I'll just throw out this vote here, because Pleo's not going to get lynched and even if he does, I'm safely ensconced in the opinion of the majority here." Pending completion of my current research: vote Peasant Smurf
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 31, 2008 11:05:18 GMT -5
Post by CatInASuit on Jan 31, 2008 11:05:18 GMT -5
I think a reasonable person, reading my quote and your response, will recognize the rephrase, so I'm not going to bother with detail. And by implication, anyone who does not see the rephrase is by definition, an unreasonable person. That's an interesting way to put it. Not that anyone would admit to such a failing. I said in my own words that when someone has accused me of this in past games, they have been scum. Which is course not incorrect, but an accurate description of my own observations from previous games. It was not, nor was it intended to be, predictive. But the implication I observed, was that I was scum by my statement of "you being a better player than your actions described". Hence, you applying your previous experience to try and predict my role. How so? I await explanation beyond this unsupported statement. Because your statement, as I saw it, was an ad hominem, smudging the person who posted.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 31, 2008 11:32:17 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Jan 31, 2008 11:32:17 GMT -5
Count me in as one of the people who could easily jump on a Day 1 no-lynch bandwagon. The factions have small nibbles of extra info that the rest of us don't have. By not infusing our little system with the additional insight brought by a lynch, we potentially extend the collective scums' lack of info, and we potentially save ourselves from choosing poorly. Great idea, Cookies. While this group of players has a nasty tendency to 'lynch for information', the idea of 'no-lynching for no information' is even worse. We've already given the scum information today (Roosh being the anti-Shu doc), as well as given them a chance to send out signals to each other. No you want to turn this game into a night start, with three scumkills per night? We may not hit a scum with a lynch today. But the upside of doing so makes a no-lynch a patently anti-town move. Not that it really matters, but I did not give birth to this idea and I'm not alone in advancing it. That being said, I'm not keen on being at all linked-in-thought to any other player at this point in the game, be it NAF or Pleo, but I'm not willing to let a compelling perspective just go unsaid or unsupported just because I don't implicitly trust whoever else happens to apparently share that perspective. I also still have my vote for NAF on the table, and I am merely discussing the hypotheticals of a no-lynch. Your opinion appears to be that simply by eliminating the chance of lynching scum, that a no-lynch is "anti-town". Do you have some maths or something to back that up? Because it seems like a very short-sighted and dismissive view to have, considering the possible benefits. I don't have any maths up my sleeve either, but what I find compelling is that there are more (3) beneficial outcomes potentially found in a no-lynch compared to only two potentially negative outcomes, imho. Pro no-lynch: 1- A no-lynch would prevent possible town-on-town violence. 2- A no-lynch forces the scum factions to go off into the Night and select their kill targets without the benefit of information/insight gained from a confirmed death. 3- A no-lynch forces the scum to have to select targets from the full population of the game, instead of the n-1 pool that a lynch would provide. Con no-lynch: 1- We miss a chance to potentially lynch a scum. 2- We postpone the decrease in the pool of protection targets for the town's power roles, and their task of choosing wisely/correctly remains that much more difficult for now.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 31, 2008 11:33:57 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Jan 31, 2008 11:33:57 GMT -5
NETA: "be it NAF or Roosh or Pleo"
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 31, 2008 11:50:59 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Jan 31, 2008 11:50:59 GMT -5
And by implication, anyone who does not see the rephrase is by definition, an unreasonable person. That's an interesting way to put it. Not that anyone would admit to such a failing. Yup, I believe that and I stand by it. If there are people who do not see a difference between the constructions: (1) "every time someone has done X in the past, that I have seen, they have turned out to be scum;" (past tense observation) and (2) "every time someone does X, they are scum" (present tense prediction), then they are being unreasonable. Those are different statements, with different implications. It is, however, interesting that you have responded so aggressively to the observation. Your scummy is showing. Yes, that's what I was doing. Applying my previous experience to try and predict your role. Which is, according to you, a scummy thing for me to be doing. Of course, you're doing it yourself - applying your previous experience (with me) to try to predict my role. So which is it? Is it scummy to use previous experience to try to predict someone's role, or is it not? Nonsense, it was neither an ad hominem - an ad hominem would be, "you're ugly so you must be scum" - nor a smudge. There was nothing smudgy about it; it was a straightforward statement of suspicion. I saw a behavior that I have in the past associated with scumminess, pointed it out, and explained in modest detail why I considered it to be scummy. That's not a smudge, that's, like, how you play Mafia. Pointing out suspicious behavior and explaining why it's suspicious is not at all scummy. But mischaracterizing someone's remark, then falsely describing it as "ad hominem," then claiming that their remark is scummy without any reasoning other than the purely circular - it's scummy because you said I might be scum, and saying I might be scum is scummy! - definitely is. My vote is where it is right now, but you're definitely shooting up the list with every post.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 31, 2008 15:28:44 GMT -5
Post by Pollux Oil on Jan 31, 2008 15:28:44 GMT -5
It's not just the bandwagon; I need to go back and see what he's said (if anything) in his postings since he started. A good place for a new to the game scum to hide would be on a bandwagon behind someone that a good portion of the players have their attention already on. In a very early post of his, he voted, then changed to me when popular opinion swung my way. All of this after just entering the game. Has he said much since? One post on page 9, and I don't see much there except for a few comments at people about his behavior. (bolding mine) The section I bolded, while it's a really good analysis, also exactly describes what you did with Roosh. Roosh was getting a lot of heat and was pretty much the main thread of discussion, and he had a substantial number of votes already when you voted for him. So by justifying your vote for Pete using this reasoning, you're also implicating yourself.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 31, 2008 16:13:40 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Jan 31, 2008 16:13:40 GMT -5
Hey guys, just starting to feel well enough to play catch up now. I should have a substantive post or two by the end of the day today. (Note day, not Day).
|
|
Koldanar
Mome Rath
[on:I survived the apocralypse!][of:Into the void, go I]
Posts: 4
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jan 31, 2008 16:17:40 GMT -5
Post by Koldanar on Jan 31, 2008 16:17:40 GMT -5
It's not just the bandwagon; I need to go back and see what he's said (if anything) in his postings since he started. A good place for a new to the game scum to hide would be on a bandwagon behind someone that a good portion of the players have their attention already on. In a very early post of his, he voted, then changed to me when popular opinion swung my way. All of this after just entering the game. Has he said much since? One post on page 9, and I don't see much there except for a few comments at people about his behavior. (bolding mine) The section I bolded, while it's a really good analysis, also exactly describes what you did with Roosh. Roosh was getting a lot of heat and was pretty much the main thread of discussion, and he had a substantial number of votes already when you voted for him. So by justifying your vote for Pete using this reasoning, you're also implicating yourself. Dammit. I had replied to this, and due to an emergency (boss came by) I lost the post. Let me try again with what I said. I feel at this point that a great crash course in learning this game is to jump in at some point, stick your foot in your own orifice of choice, and then have to deal with a bandwagon on your ass. In regards to my vote at that point, I felt that both RoOsh and NAF were suspicious due to more activity than anyone else. Since then, reading more replys, and learning how I react to what others have to say, I've realized thats not a good tell on scum (or at least not around some people). You're a suspicious lot, dangit. My issue is since then I've been trying to talk, to respond to people quoting me and discussing my actions. Pete has yet to say a damn thing to those that actually placed a vote on him.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 31, 2008 16:54:50 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Jan 31, 2008 16:54:50 GMT -5
Sorry guys, it looks like there are going to be a lot of short little posts by me until I finish getting caught up. They seem like a better idea then a single massive post. So let's start from WAY back on page 7 (I think) Okay, first of all, unvote Santa Rugger. NAF: storyteller had two posts suggesting the Vig claim if he was required to kill each night, so he'd lose his nightkill (#19 & #36). Post 37 was by me In Roosh's #61, he added In your #79, you reply to #36 with: You had already replied to the portions of Roosh's post addressing you, did you skip the rest of that, plus my reply to story? I don't remember exactly what I was thinking. I was more focused on the idea story was presenting and was, at the time, working up to a case for a mass claim. But then I looked at the numbers and changed my mind. So that's what that was all about. Hope that does something for you. ;D More posts to come! [oog]P.S. If you know or love someone in the Los Angeles area, tell them to drink lots of chicken soup and get a flu shot. This thing is nasty and is going around town at light speed. [/oog]
|
|