Mini 1747: Cinnamon Roll Mafia Endgame
-
-
iraonavp Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: December 1, 2015
-
-
iraonavp Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: December 1, 2015
In post 36, MoosyDoosy wrote:hawkleader3's opening was awkward as hell and how he immediately backed off was terribad.
These were my immediate thoughts when I read the page 1 exchange between hawkleader3 and Syndesis. In particular, I disliked 20, as Syndesis did not give what was in my opinion an adequate reason for voting him. It felt as if hawkleader3 over-anticipated the validity of Syndesis' push, due to knowledge of his own scum alignment!
Additionally, in 64, I do not agree with his assessment of MoosyDoosy's trio of posts. It appears he is finding poor excuses to place a vote, which is consistent with his earlier awkward stances around voting.
VOTE: hawkleader3
Indeed, I also dislike Metrion's 65. His RV seems out of place considering that there is currently a serious wagon already taking place.
In post 65, Metrion wrote:Anyway, exactly what is scummy about having a chipper first post, Tool?
This soft defense of hawkleader3 is unaccompanied by any kind of clarification of his stance.
I feel that, especially if hawkleader3 is scum-aligned, Metrion is likely to be scum-aligned!
I believe both MoosyDoosy and Syndesis to be town-aligned, their posts seem easygoing and to represent a casual train-of-thought process which is more likely to come from town.
Toolenduso seems guarded, as if he has something to hide.-
-
iraonavp Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: December 1, 2015
In post 55, davesaz wrote:In post 53, toolenduso wrote:
Then there's the fact that we're in RVS, which also explains his entrance.
Just to clarify, you're referring to being in RVS at the time of the posts which are now being analyzed, right?
Most would say that we're talking about motivations and analysis now, which would mean it isn't random any more -- though there may still be pockets of quirk.
What do you think about Swordsworth's entrance, does it make him likely to be scum-aligned or town-aligned?
Personally, I think it makes him likely to be town-aligned. The idea of him trying to participate in RVS while not understanding how it is beneficial worries me at first, but 46 sounds very genuine. I feel that if Swordsworth was scum-aligned, he would be afraid to admit that he didn't understand why RVS (a site custom) was used.-
-
iraonavp Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: December 1, 2015
In post 78, Syndesis wrote:That looks like L-2?
Yes, I believe so!-
-
iraonavp Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: December 1, 2015
In post 156, toolenduso wrote:Even put aside the possibility that hawk is lying about his claim, and just think about this. His claim is more likely than not going to be verified one way or another within the next day phase or two. We could get a counterclaim, or he could be NK'ed, or he could prevent a NK, or somebody could get a result on him, or so on and so forth. Him being NK'ed is probably the most likely.
So why lynch him?
I essentially agree with this. While there are a few things that stand out to me as suspicious about hawkleader3's claim, I expect it to resolve itself soon enough that it's not worth taking the risk of lynching him in case he's town-aligned.
UNVOTE: hawkleader3-
-
iraonavp Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: December 1, 2015
In post 140, TheCow wrote:Open498 - A total of four posts before replacement. Fire Goon. Punctuation is different, phrasing is different, etc. Latest game before leaving the site. No introduction post.
Micro280 - 12 posts before replacement. Town aligned.
hawkleader3 wrote:Hello guys, I always like to give a short introduction of myself at the start of the game because I feel weird not doing it. I am hawkleader3, but you may call me by any name that pops into your head at the moment or whatever is easiest to type (Hawk, HL3, Hawkleader, Confucius, etc.). I have played a total of 3.5 newbie games (.5 was when I replaced in as scum but the town got a perfect win. The game ended in a week), but since then, I have been off of this site for a good 6 months, so this could be considered my return. This is my first micro game thus also being my first game using this setup (which I think I will like BTW) and I wish everyone the best of luck.
Game lines up.
N1360(SE) - 26 posts. Town. Survived to endgame. Another introduction post. asdf asdf asdf too bored
===
Hawk, you've been on mobile for much of this game, I presume? I'd keep going but I'm damn lazy. Everything lines up with town!hawk. I'd recommend an unvote.
I'm not entirely sure what aspect of this analysis made you think hawkleader3 was likely to be town-aligned, would you mind explaining in greater detail?
In particular it bothers me how your stance seems to change from thinking that he is most likely scum-aligned, to thinking that he is most likely town-aligned, with what seems like vacuous reasoning in the interim. I also question the relevance of hawkleader3's typing speed, but I can see where you were coming from in terms of determining whether or not he pretyped his post.-
-
iraonavp Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: December 1, 2015
In post 167, MoosyDoosy wrote:Yes we should lynch hawk when he was un CC'd. Just the fact that Mafia will make him a target off the bat gives us more incentive to kill him ASAP.
That sounds awfully reckless, I do not endorse this plan!
I would consider voting Metrion at this point, as I believed him to be scum-aligned from his entrance post and I would like to hear more from him. Unfortunately he appears to be V / LA until Friday.
VOTE: FA_Q2
I prefer this vote, instead.
In post 160, FA_Q2 wrote:Respond to what?
He has not constructed a 'push.' Just a rather naked vote and a post that says 'this.' Neither is something that is possible to respond to until he actually gives a reason or a case for the vote.
Here, FA_Q2 expresses indignation towards Syndesis' vote. I feel this is likely to originate from a scum-aligned player feeling that their own play is sound and getting frustrated at an unexplained (and in their opinion unjustified) vote.
In post 147, FA_Q2 wrote:By all means - construct a case.
He wants Syndesis to give more reasoning behind her push, perhaps because he is uncomfortable with the unexplained vote despite it carrying little weight at this point. Scum-aligned players may be less at-ease with votes on themselves as they have more incentive to survive. He wants Syndesis to attack him with arguments that he can defuse, as he is eager to release even the slightest pressure of a single vote!-
-
iraonavp Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: December 1, 2015
In post 190, Syndesis wrote:I mean, I get frustrated when people push me without a case as either alignment, so that might be just null. That said, scum caught for the wrong reasons also tend to get frustrated, but I've seen no sign of that so far.
I feel that his response has constituted more than just frustration, in particular premature defensiveness. His repeated insistence that you explain your vote, and that an unexplained accusation cannot be responded to, show how much he wants to answer your accusation to prevent his wagon from progressing any further.
In post 147, FA_Q2 wrote:You should but you are going to need more than a naked vote to do so.
By all means - construct a case.
Additionally, in posts like this tone is somewhat passive-aggressive, and I believe he is attempting to hide his frustration. This makes me think that FA_Q2 is perhaps trying to hide his fear of being voted which is even greater than he is letting on.-
-
iraonavp Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: December 1, 2015
In post 193, FA_Q2 wrote:In post 191, iraonavp wrote:In post 190, Syndesis wrote:I mean, I get frustrated when people push me without a case as either alignment, so that might be just null. That said, scum caught for the wrong reasons also tend to get frustrated, but I've seen no sign of that so far.
I feel that his response has constituted more than just frustration, in particular premature defensiveness. His repeated insistence that you explain your vote, and that an unexplained accusation cannot be responded to, show how much he wants to answer your accusation to prevent his wagon from progressing any further.
In post 147, FA_Q2 wrote:You should but you are going to need more than a naked vote to do so.
By all means - construct a case.
Additionally, in posts like this tone is somewhat passive-aggressive, and I believe he is attempting to hide his frustration. This makes me think that FA_Q2 is perhaps trying to hide his fear of being voted which is even greater than he is letting on.
Strange considering that there is zero frustration in that post at all. I expect everyone to explain their votes. Naked votes are more than worthless - they are scummy. They completely avoid purpose and reasoning - things you use later in the game to find scum.
Further, I was directly asked to address the vote. I responded. Considering that I called out hawk for ignoring pressure on him I don't see how you would expect me to act otherwise.
Apologies, I believe I may have read more into the tone of your posts than was actually there. And I can see how the question you were asked about the vote was not exactly a good one.
There's something else... a difficult to describe feeling bothering me with your posts which I can't really define, but I will unvote for now as I believe my previous vote to have lost most of its basis.
UNVOTE: FA_Q2-
-
iraonavp Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: December 1, 2015
In post 207, davesaz wrote:Being wrong doesn't make someone scum, unless they're scum being wrong on purpose to try to make people think they're not scum.
What is this in reference to? I must have missed some context here.-
-
iraonavp Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: December 1, 2015
I feel that Moosy's sarcastic posts and self-votes are more likely to come from a town-aligned player frustrated with accusations leveled at them. I simply do not see a scum-aligned player placing a vote on themselves or playing so... suicidally. While I do not think that this is a beneficial outlet or good play, I do not think it is worth lynching them simply to make them change their behavior.-
-
iraonavp Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: December 1, 2015
In post 241, MoosyDoosy wrote:davesaz, thoughts on iranoavp?
He might have difficulty answering that question, considering how "iranoavp" is not a player in this game! Although it appears he worked it out.-
-
iraonavp Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: December 1, 2015
In post 267, davesaz wrote:Given that I am town, your attempt to discredit my scumhunting could mean you're scum.
I would say that this is another (nicely placed) example of what toolenduso has previously described as "sowing seeds of doubt".
How confident is your belief that toolenduso's alleged attempt to discredit your scumhunting is likely to come from a scum-aligned player?-
-
iraonavp Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: December 1, 2015
In post 263, toolenduso wrote:Your utter inability to understand what I'm saying might be because you're town.
I'll have to consider that a little further though.
I do not exactly understand this perspective. In this example, how would davesaz's utter inability to understand what you're saying make him more likely to be town-aligned?
I would think that town-aligned players could misunderstand as easily as scum-aligned players, and I'm not sure if your post was some kind of offhand and sarcastic comment.-
-
iraonavp Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: December 1, 2015
In post 251, davesaz wrote:
I noticed many of his posts have "I feel like" or similar language, which struck me as strange. Not much if any questioning of things, more commentary on things. It makes me want to go back and reread it all with more context to see if any of those feels were controversial or if it's an attempt to blend in.
There's nothing to be inferred from the words I use, I assure you! I would agree with your assessment that I have posted more commentary than questions. What conclusion have you drawn from these observations?-
-
iraonavp Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: December 1, 2015
In post 291, FA_Q2 wrote:In post 284, Chaotic Neutrality wrote:That makes no sense. Scum can make up reasons just as easily as town could, and they'll often look better because they're paying attention to how people read them.
Placement of the votes and motivation matter a hundred times more than reason.
I don't like this post one bit.
You cast doubt on Dave's statement but fail to complete your statement. If placement mattered so much more then why did you not bother to address those that jumped on where you consider scummy placement? I would also state you are completely incorrect. Placement matters but scum can just as easily manipulate that as they can come up with reasoning. Reasoning is a powerful tool for town - as the game rolls on scum tend to reveal themselves with inconsistent reasoning and in the motivations behind those reasons.
Speaking of which:
In post 275, TheCow wrote:
not really but i probably have to later
No, you really need to now. A vote is worthless without something behind it to get more people to vote.
I disagree with this post on a theory level. If all the scum-aligned players just gave reasons for their votes (not a difficult thing to do), then on this basis they'd be indistinguishable from the town-aligned players! If you use such a rigid rubric for determining a player's alignment, I feel you will more frequently entrap players of any alignment who simply don't feel like playing by the rules or giving reasons for their votes.
With that said, VOTE: Metrion! Let's turn this into a fun game where Metrion flounders about and continues to post scummy things in an attempt to grasp how iraonavp worked out his alignment, while votes pile up on him!-
-
iraonavp Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: December 1, 2015
In post 293, MoosyDoosy wrote:iranoavp or whatever his name is needs to be looked at again. And by that, I mean his ISO. I said he was no-lynch pile for today but that may change. His vote onto hawkleader3 might have been an opportunity to jump onto an easy wagon and his subsequent jump onto the next popular wagon with terrible reasoning was highly suspect.
I would agree with you that hawkleader3 was an "easy wagon", but what about this makes me likely to be scum-aligned? I would consider easy wagons as those on players who appear scum-aligned, where else would I be expected to vote if you were to consider me likely to be town-aligned?
I do not think that my subsequent jump was onto "the next popular wagon", it had but one vote before I jumped. I would agree with you that my reasoning was less than impressive, this was why I unvoted!-
-
iraonavp Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: December 1, 2015
In post 305, FA_Q2 wrote:In post 302, iraonavp wrote:
I disagree with this post on a theory level. If all the scum-aligned players just gave reasons for their votes (not a difficult thing to do), then on this basis they'd be indistinguishable from the town-aligned players! If you use such a rigid rubric for determining a player's alignment, I feel you will more frequently entrap players of any alignment who simply don't feel like playing by the rules or giving reasons for their votes.
It is not a matter of rigidity and I don't know where you are pulling that from. They are not indistinguishable because you can analyze their reasoning. Random voting is impossible to analyze and makes determining alignment impossible.
Yes, but what I am trying to convey is that this analysis is ultimately pointless. Perhaps you may determine how logical they are, but you won't determine whether or not they are scum-aligned.
If it entraps more players who 'don't feel like giving reasons' then that is a site meta problem. Meta that would need to be addressed anyway considering that it gimps town hardcore.
I would not consider poor "site meta" a rebuttal for this counterargument. We aren't all cyborgs, and as such perfect play will be rarely achieved. Far from it, in fact, I would expect players to play with a variety of playstyles and skill levels!
Theory analysis really is a distraction though.
I agree, there doesn't seem to be much point in further discussion of this topic considering how we appear to disagree fundamentally. Let it be made clear however that I do not endorse your suspicion of players who vote without reason, but I (somewhat ironically) do not think that you are scum for what I consider this poor reasoning.-
-
iraonavp Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: December 1, 2015
Oh, I nearly forgot that I was playing in this game! It's lucky I haven't been prodded yet, I am catching up now.
In post 310, Metrion wrote:I'm not sure if this is town frustration or scum just wanting someone FoSing them out of the game. Either way I don't find the strange style Moosy adopted to be alignment indicative, it's different which initially made me lean town really, but apparently they've admitted their capable of doing this as scum so I just haven't dwelled on it when considering their alignment.
Is there any other aspect of Moosy's play which you think gives hints to their alignment, or do you have absolutely no clue either way?-
-
iraonavp Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: December 1, 2015
In post 333, Chaotic Neutrality wrote:In post 330, toolenduso wrote:"Free of responsibility" is the kind of wording you would use when indicating that you would be in trouble. Which implies that moosy would be flipping town, no?
Responsibility boils down to, at the flip, whatever his alignment is, the people on the wagon will typically answer to it. The general idea being that whoever votes for the person being lynched has a higher chance of being scum because a) they're bussing for town cred, or b) they're aiding in a mislynch. You should know that. You do know that.
I still don't quite understand this. Someone not voting on the lynch could be held responsible for ignoring the wagon, even if it was on either town or scum. I mean, you might as well not play if you want to be completely free of this kind of "responsibility"!-
-
iraonavp Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: December 1, 2015
In post 334, Metrion wrote:Yup, lots of accusations of scumminess, not a lot of good articulate reasons. Matched with the activity level of a koala. Legendary game underway here.
Taking action to remedy the problem rather than complaining is the way to fix this.
I'd like at least Iraonavp to post more, it's not fair to put on your theatrics then leave the audience waiting.
My sincerest apologies.
CN & FA are interesting at least.
How is FA_Q2 "interesting"?
Speaking of:
Chaotic may seem a bit more Town after that last post? It looks like he didn't fully get Tool's inference that he scum slipped by assuming Moosy would flip town, or at least didn't answer that explicitly instead droning on about why scum go on lynches. The inference itself was garbage because the scenario painted that he was responded to was that Moosy was "lynchbait" and that's how I expected a scum response to be because they'd most likely be full well aware of that.
Or maybe he genuinely didn't get it.
I believe that Chaotic Neutrality's response to toolenduso's post did show understanding of toolenduso's point. I don't think I even understand what you're trying to say here in some parts...-
-
iraonavp Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: December 1, 2015
I would still like Metrion lynched today!
He's reaching for reasons to defend Chaotic Neutrality in posts like 334 and 346. 334 is just babbling that makes very little sense and then he magically claims to believe that Chaotic Neutrality is town-aligned at the end. I really don't like 346 because it seems an indirect response to who the vote was on.
That said, I don't actually think that Chaotic Neutrality is likely to be scum-aligned, and I would not vote to lynch him. I feel that his responses to pressure looked like genuine town irritation. I don't support his retaliative push on toolenduso, but I think it came from a town-aligned thought process (from reasoning of toolenduso is wrong, therefore he's scum-aligned, which despite being wrong doesn't make Chaotic Neutrality more likely to be scum-aligned). I don't see why a scum-aligned player would push their accuser (if toolenduso was town-aligned, which I feel is likely to be true), since all that would do is convince their accuser that they were more likely to be scum-aligned.-
-
iraonavp Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: December 1, 2015
In post 371, lolbabe wrote:In post 364, davesaz wrote:Your vote is in a singularly useless place right now. I'm hoping we will soon hear the popping sound that designates your head being pulled out of a dark place.
You really need to at least be playing to your wincon.
Oh wow, Dave is scum.
Is this a serious comment, and if so, how does this post make davesaz scum?-
-
iraonavp Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: December 1, 2015
In post 374, lolbabe wrote:In post 373, iraonavp wrote:Is this a serious comment, and if so, how does this post make davesaz scum?
How does Dave know Moosy's alignment when he asks him to play for his wincon? If Moosy's scum, his wincon isn't to help town.
I admit that this is a bold statement but holy cow (sorry, Cow) it does look like scumslip to me.
As dave saz (heh), Moosy wouldn't be playing to his alignment as scum either in his current state! Although this is debatable, I think that that was the intention of what he said, and that his comment was not a scumslip.-
-
iraonavp Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: December 1, 2015
In post 377, davesaz wrote:In post 369, iraonavp wrote:In post 333, Chaotic Neutrality wrote:In post 330, toolenduso wrote:"Free of responsibility" is the kind of wording you would use when indicating that you would be in trouble. Which implies that moosy would be flipping town, no?
Responsibility boils down to, at the flip, whatever his alignment is, the people on the wagon will typically answer to it. The general idea being that whoever votes for the person being lynched has a higher chance of being scum because a) they're bussing for town cred, or b) they're aiding in a mislynch. You should know that. You do know that.
I still don't quite understand this. Someone not voting on the lynch could be held responsible for ignoring the wagon, even if it was on either town or scum. I mean, you might as well not play if you want to be completely free of this kind of "responsibility"!
Yes, I also found the fallacy very quickly. But is taking this position alignment indicative?
No, I do not think so.-
-
iraonavp Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: December 1, 2015
UNVOTE: Metrion
VOTE: FA_Q2
While I remain no less convinced that Metrion is scum-aligned, there is not much time left and I would like to lynch someone today! In its current position, my vote is all but useless. I believe that of the current wagons, FA_Q2 is most likely to be scum-aligned, toolenduso is most likely to be town-aligned, and Chaotic Neutrality is still reasonably likely to be town-aligned.
Metrion, I intend to respond to your post when I get the chance (I am currently rather busy).-
-
iraonavp Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: December 1, 2015
In post 414, Metrion wrote:In post 368, iraonavp wrote:Oh, I nearly forgot that I was playing in this game! It's lucky I haven't been prodded yet, I am catching up now.
In post 310, Metrion wrote:I'm not sure if this is town frustration or scum just wanting someone FoSing them out of the game. Either way I don't find the strange style Moosy adopted to be alignment indicative, it's different which initially made me lean town really, but apparently they've admitted their capable of doing this as scum so I just haven't dwelled on it when considering their alignment.
Is there any other aspect of Moosy's play which you think gives hints to their alignment, or do you have absolutely no clue either way?
When you refer to play are you referring to over-arching style/methodology, or current pushes/reactions/etc?
Why not both? Actually more the second, since the first seems to imply playstyle.
I don't have a firm grasp on them either way, really. Not on my lynch list today if anything.
This strikes me as suspicious, considering how "I haven't dwelled on it when considering their alignment" implies that you have, at least, attempted to grasp Moosy's alignment.
In post 370, iraonavp wrote:In post 334, Metrion wrote:Yup, lots of accusations of scumminess, not a lot of good articulate reasons. Matched with the activity level of a koala. Legendary game underway here.
Taking action to remedy the problem rather than complaining is the way to fix this.
Um yeah, that's why that isn't the only line in that post?
I'm just trying to point out that you don't seem to be active enough to criticize the game's activity without being hypocritical.
Why didn't you ask why CN is interesting?
Because in that post you continued on to explain some of your thoughts on CN but not FA.
In post 370, iraonavp wrote:
Speaking of:
Chaotic may seem a bit more Town after that last post? It looks like he didn't fully get Tool's inference that he scum slipped by assuming Moosy would flip town, or at least didn't answer that explicitly instead droning on about why scum go on lynches. The inference itself was garbage because the scenario painted that he was responded to was that Moosy was "lynchbait" and that's how I expected a scum response to be because they'd most likely be full well aware of that.
Or maybe he genuinely didn't get it.
I believe that Chaotic Neutrality's response to toolenduso's post did show understanding of toolenduso's point. I don't think I even understand what you're trying to say here in some parts...
Well Tool himself had no qualms with the statement that CN didn't get his point. Reasoning supplied would be useful for why you think he did, and actually telling me what part you don't understand would be helpful too.
Well, toolenduso basically said that CN was assuming / had hidden knowledge that Moosy was town-aligned due to the phrase "free of responsibility" [from Moosy's lynch]. Then CN responded saying that even if Moosy turned out to be scum-aligned then he could still bear some responsibility in terms of being accused of bussing. I don't believe CN misunderstood what toolenduso was saying at all.
The emote accurately describes how I feel about most of that post from a logical perspective.
In post 372, iraonavp wrote:I would still like Metrion lynched today!
He's reaching for reasons to defend Chaotic Neutrality in posts like 334 and 346. 334 is just babbling that makes very little sense and then he magically claims to believe that Chaotic Neutrality is town-aligned at the end. I really don't like 346 because it seems an indirect response to who the vote was on.
That said, I don't actually think that Chaotic Neutrality is likely to be scum-aligned, and I would not vote to lynch him. I feel that his responses to pressure looked like genuine town irritation. I don't support his retaliative push on toolenduso, but I think it came from a town-aligned thought process (from reasoning of toolenduso is wrong, therefore he's scum-aligned, which despite being wrong doesn't make Chaotic Neutrality more likely to be scum-aligned). I don't see why a scum-aligned player would push their accuser (if toolenduso was town-aligned, which I feel is likely to be true), since all that would do is convince their accuser that they were more likely to be scum-aligned.
Chaotic may seem a bit more Town after that last post?
The above, for those wishing to know my exact words and not the twisted versions being depicted of declaring him strongly Town aligned only because of that reaction.
No, that is not what I am attempting to convey! You are not stating your convictions up-front, and it seems your defense of CN is subtle and underhanded. I never depicted you as declaring him strongly town-aligned. The way you declare him "a bit more Town" appears to me "magical" as the reasoning behind it makes no sense to me.
Saying we shouldn't waste discussion is reaching to defend a player, I think that's some poor word choice right there.
It constitutes reaching in my opinion because you appear to be resorting to this extremely odd argument to combat a vote on CN, rather than addressing why you think CN is likely to be town-aligned. I strongly doubt you actually are this concerned about a few days of discussion time, especially considering your abysmal opinion of how we've used this time so far.
Reaching implies struggling to make a congruent case. There simply isn't a case at all...Semantics aside, it's lame reasoning toreally not like(where-ever that arbitrary scaling system places that). Reasoning being that there simply isn't anything scummy about it.
I believe that, from reading between the lines, you are attempting to push an agenda of making CN appear town-aligned. It is "scummy" (as you call it) to play below the radar and be opaque about your motivations and opinions.
(Note: You later go on to state that you read CN as town-aligned, this marks the start of the creation of this congruent case.)
Unless you want to suggest that rushing into things is better for town,
Trying to consolidate a lynch target with 5 remaining days simply does not constitute "rushing into things", whatever way you look at it.
or that asking for more time in any sense is scummy
Not in any sense, but I would argue that the way in which you requested more time makes you more likely to be scum-aligned. This is not worth examining further at this point, so I suggest you do not debate with me here yet.
especially when the person that is circumstantially being defended is read by that player to be town.
I expected this, to some extent. I would like for you to elaborate further on this point. Are there any other reasons why you believe CN is likely to be town-aligned, other than your strange post about him misinterpreting something?
You have implied earlier that you believed that CN was scum-aligned until he posted a certain thing, and not said a whole lot about him looking town-aligned otherwise. Really, from looking at your posts, I get mixed messages. Some parts feel like you think he's scum-aligned and your opinion softened just slightly, yet I got the impression that you were subtly trying to push a town-aligned read on him. My suspicions were confirmed by the above quote.
Back to semantics, that accusation right there, against me for 346, is reaching.
Slander!-
-
iraonavp Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: December 1, 2015
In post 412, FA_Q2 wrote:In post 410, davesaz wrote:3 days till deadline, with many people going to be V/LA either stated or not.
While a true statement, it adds nothing to actually moving forward with the game in general. From a player that almost always asks questions, I find this statement rather odd...
I could understand this if davesaz did nothing but make posts like these, but you even acknowledge that he has moved the game forward previously.
You are placing the slightest sliver of suspicion onto davesaz for something that really shouldn't be warranting even this. Even so, this kind of throwing shade is inherently unwarranted because it is usually irrelevant and serves little purpose other than to discredit. I find this action suspicious and become happier with my compromise vote on you.-
-
iraonavp Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: December 1, 2015
In post 419, FA_Q2 wrote:In post 415, iraonavp wrote:UNVOTE: Metrion
VOTE: FA_Q2
While I remain no less convinced that Metrion is scum-aligned, there is not much time left and I would like to lynch someone today! In its current position, my vote is all but useless. I believe that of the current wagons, FA_Q2 is most likely to be scum-aligned, toolenduso is most likely to be town-aligned,and Chaotic Neutrality is still reasonably likely to be town-aligned.
Metrion, I intend to respond to your post when I get the chance (I am currently rather busy).
Why?
I explained this previously in 372!-
-
iraonavp Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: December 1, 2015
In post 420, FA_Q2 wrote:In post 417, iraonavp wrote:In post 412, FA_Q2 wrote:In post 410, davesaz wrote:3 days till deadline, with many people going to be V/LA either stated or not.
While a true statement, it adds nothing to actually moving forward with the game in general. From a player that almost always asks questions, I find this statement rather odd...
I could understand this if davesaz did nothing but make posts like these, but you even acknowledge that he has moved the game forward previously.
You are placing the slightest sliver of suspicion onto davesaz for something that really shouldn't be warranting even this. Even so, this kind of throwing shade is inherently unwarranted because it is usually irrelevant and serves little purpose other than to discredit. I find this action suspicious and become happier with my compromise vote on you.
Absolutely, asking questions and pointing out inconsistencies in a players posting certainly is scummy, right.
You didn't ask any questions in 412. The fact that you pointed out inconsistencies in davesaz's posting does not make you look more like a scum-aligned player to me. The fact that you approached it in such a subtle and doubtful way (his comment is "odd", not "scummy", or even "null" as I would consider it) makes you look scum-aligned.
A town player would just sit down and not point anything out because that is just so good for town.
/sarcasm
I think this is an example of what I dislike about your posts' tone.-
-
iraonavp Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: December 1, 2015
-
-
iraonavp Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: December 1, 2015
-
-
iraonavp Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: December 1, 2015
In post 437, davesaz wrote:Can you give some details on the Syndesis read?
They... seem town-aligned? Their posts are genuine and train-of-thought, s that what you want to hear? I am not good at town-aligned reads. Let's say it is a "gut read", if that makes it easier.
This sounds like you have no true scum reads at all?
I don't understand where you're getting this from. I read Metrion, FA_Q2, TheCow and you as scum-aligned to various degrees. The deadline is forcing a compromise lynch.-
-
iraonavp Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: December 1, 2015
In post 441, FA_Q2 wrote:In post 422, iraonavp wrote:You didn't ask any questions in 412. The fact that you pointed out inconsistencies in davesaz's posting does not make you look more like a scum-aligned player to me. The fact that you approached it in such a subtle and doubtful way (his comment is "odd", not "scummy", or even "null" as I would consider it) makes you look scum-aligned.
That is because his comment is not 'scummy' in and of itself. It was simply odd or out of character from what I consider dave's normal posting.
Then why mention it at all then? I don't believe that you were motivated by pure and innocent curiousity, it seemed intended to cast doubt on davesaz.
I see that pointing out oddities is a problem with you. If town feels the need to lynch me over it then so be it.
I do feel the need!
In post 421, iraonavp wrote:In post 419, FA_Q2 wrote:In post 415, iraonavp wrote:UNVOTE: Metrion
VOTE: FA_Q2
While I remain no less convinced that Metrion is scum-aligned, there is not much time left and I would like to lynch someone today! In its current position, my vote is all but useless. I believe that of the current wagons, FA_Q2 is most likely to be scum-aligned, toolenduso is most likely to be town-aligned,and Chaotic Neutrality is still reasonably likely to be town-aligned.
Metrion, I intend to respond to your post when I get the chance (I am currently rather busy).
Why?
I explained this previously in 372!
Your explanation is rather vapid. You point out that his response to being pushed was towny. What response? He has simply ignored being pushed. When has ignoring things been towny?
By his response I mean posts such as 352 and 355. I think that he shows an apathetic town response to being wagoned. I don't see why ignoring things can't be "towny" simply as a matter of principle.-
-
iraonavp Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: December 1, 2015
In post 442, FA_Q2 wrote:In post 440, iraonavp wrote:In post 437, davesaz wrote:Can you give some details on the Syndesis read?
They... seem town-aligned? Their posts are genuine and train-of-thought, s that what you want to hear? I am not good at town-aligned reads. Let's say it is a "gut read", if that makes it easier.
This sounds like you have no true scum reads at all?
I don't understand where you're getting this from. I read Metrion, FA_Q2, TheCow and you as scum-aligned to various degrees. The deadline is forcing a compromise lynch.
How is this a compromise lynch? You want to lynch me and I am one of the leading wagons.
A compromise lynch because Metrion would be my first pick for today's lynch.-
-
iraonavp Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: December 1, 2015
In post 446, davesaz wrote:Hmm, I'm having a problem finding your initial reason for scum reading Metrion.
In my second post, I said that he looked scum-aligned from even his first few posts. His further responses convinced me that I was right. Maybe I didn't elaborate on it as much as I thought I did, but he's really scummy and you should be able to see how anyway.-
-
iraonavp Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: December 1, 2015
In post 448, Swordsworth wrote:Ugh, sorry everybody, I really should have taken a V/LA. Holiday dinner after holiday dinner after holiday dinner... *shudder*
Oh...what is this, Chaotic? Better him than you?
And why is that, necessarily?
That's quite a bad question, and I think I can answer for him! It is better for any player to have someone else lynched than to be themselves lynched.
Please place a vote (preferably on FA_Q2), we don't have much time left.-
-
iraonavp Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: December 1, 2015
In post 458, Syndesis wrote:I may not be around at deadline but I should be here for another 4-ish hours at least. Will anyone be around closer to deadline to hammer?
I should be around closer to deadline!-
-
iraonavp Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: December 1, 2015
-
-
iraonavp
-
-
iraonavp Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: December 1, 2015
In post 500, MoosyDoosy wrote:@iraonavp, what's your read on Metrion right now?
^^ probably like the most prevalent question right now.
Scum-aligned, it was not altered very much by Chaotic Neutrality being revealed as scum-aligned. The soft defense of Chaotic Neutrality makes me suspect Metrion to an even greater extent since Chaotic Neutrality was actually scum-aligned. It makes more sense to me that I was wrong about thinking CN was town-aligned but right about thinking Metrion was scum-aligned.
Also, I can't say I've read all of toolenduso's post, but who can disagree with all those words?!-
-
iraonavp Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: December 1, 2015
In post 511, Syndesis wrote:-@ira, 372: Could you clarify? Why would scum reach to defend, especially to defend town?
So they look better after Chaotic Neutrality flips town-aligned (I thought that Chaotic Neutrality was town-aligned at that point). That's not relevant after Chaotic Neutrality flipped a scum-aligned role, though.-
-
iraonavp Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: December 1, 2015
In post 510, Soapbar wrote:Woops sorry about that.
With swords dead I ran out of scum reads so I've been reading ISO's more. davesaz seems more scummy the more I look at him
1) He's literally only voted twice
2) Most of his posts are just questions and not much else
3) When he actually goes into any real analysis, it's generally when he's defending himself or something he's said with the CN wagon being the exception
4) His vote on CN is very likely to be bussing scum I feel. 427 is a very brief explanation of CN's scumminess, and then 428 and 431 are going into why the peopleon CN's wagon are town, which seems rather, appeasy, for lack of a better word
VOTE: davesaz
I do not endorse this vote.
I did have a few qualms about davesaz previously, but I have come to the conclusion that questioning people intensively is the way he plays to find out people's alignments. Perhaps 4 is the only point that carries any real weight, the way he suddenly gets his vote into action on Chaotic Neutrality is slightly suspicious. But I believe that this is offset by the rest of his play.-
-
iraonavp Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: December 1, 2015
In post 512, davesaz wrote:It would really help a lot if you would say why.
I am personally somewhat frustrated at being the main wagon at this point. I feel it is a direct result of me being incorrect (and the most vocally so) about Chaotic Neutrality's alignment.-
-
iraonavp Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: December 1, 2015
In post 491, Metrion wrote:I'll explain later, right now I'm off to eat.
This never happened!-
-
iraonavp Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: December 1, 2015
In post 529, Syndesis wrote:In post 467, iraonavp wrote:Well, here we have it!
Usually it is customary to request a claim before hammering, so please do not do that again, Swordsworth. I can understand that you might be new to mafia and not know that, though.
Did you really expect a claim from CN at that point in time?
Yes, I've read other games and isn't that usually what happens? Put someone to L-1, then someone else states intent to hammer, then they ask for a claim.-
-
iraonavp Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: December 1, 2015
In post 531, Syndesis wrote:In post 530, iraonavp wrote:In post 529, Syndesis wrote:In post 467, iraonavp wrote:Well, here we have it!
Usually it is customary to request a claim before hammering, so please do not do that again, Swordsworth. I can understand that you might be new to mafia and not know that, though.
Did you really expect a claim from CN at that point in time?
Yes, I've read other games and isn't that usually what happens? Put someone to L-1, then someone else states intent to hammer, then they ask for a claim.
Wasn't deadline within...a couple of hours at that point? It was very likely CN wouldn't get a chance to claim.
That's a good point, I actually did not consider that! I can see where you're getting at with this line of questioning, but no, I would definitely have hammered Chaotic Neutrality even without a claim if the deadline loomed. I would have much preferred a lynch on someone I considered town-aligned than a nolynch. Probably how it would have gone was:
Me: "intent to hammer pls claim cn"
CN: *is afk*
You: "cn is afk"
Me: "k, ]v[]cnVOTE: [v/]"-
-
iraonavp Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: December 1, 2015
In post 534, Syndesis wrote:In post 527, iraonavp wrote:I am personally somewhat frustrated at being the main wagon at this point. I feel it is a direct result ofme being incorrect (and the most vocally so) about Chaotic Neutrality's alignment.
Do you think thisisn'tscummy?
No, I think scum-aligned players would be subtly supporting Chaotic Neutrality or having inconsistent stances. I was simply wrong, and town-aligned players can be wrong sometimes since they don't much information.-
-
iraonavp Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: December 1, 2015
In post 543, FA_Q2 wrote:In post 504, iraonavp wrote:In post 500, MoosyDoosy wrote:@iraonavp, what's your read on Metrion right now?
^^ probably like the most prevalent question right now.
Scum-aligned, it was not altered very much by Chaotic Neutrality being revealed as scum-aligned. The soft defense of Chaotic Neutrality makes me suspect Metrion to an even greater extent since Chaotic Neutrality was actually scum-aligned. It makes more sense to me that I was wrong about thinking CN was town-aligned but right about thinking Metrion was scum-aligned.
Also, I can't say I've read all of toolenduso's post, but who can disagree with all those words?!
So a town read flipping scum actually reinforced your original scum read?
UNVOTE:
I find this very scummy as scum have a reason to avoid looking inconstant. A scum flip on a town read *should* cause you to re-evaluate your original positions, not entrench them. Point out those soft defense posts you infer about. I believe this is the first time you mention them.
That's a large generalization, this is entirely dependent on situation. On d1, I don't try to resolve inconsistencies among my reads (e.g. [x] and [y] probably aren't both scum together but I read them as scum individually). This means that when a read is wrong, it doesn't make the others all wrong too.
Also:
In post 445, iraonavp wrote:In post 442, FA_Q2 wrote:In post 440, iraonavp wrote:In post 437, davesaz wrote:Can you give some details on the Syndesis read?
They... seem town-aligned? Their posts are genuine and train-of-thought, s that what you want to hear? I am not good at town-aligned reads. Let's say it is a "gut read", if that makes it easier.
This sounds like you have no true scum reads at all?
I don't understand where you're getting this from. I read Metrion, FA_Q2, TheCow and you as scum-aligned to various degrees. The deadline is forcing a compromise lynch.
How is this a compromise lynch? You want to lynch me and I am one of the leading wagons.
A compromise lynch because Metrion would be my first pick for today's lynch.
I am reminded about this scummy post. Here you are claiming that one of your scum picks (me) is a 'compromise lynch' which is a false claim IMHO. You labeled me as scum - not as a maybe. I notice that you did not even include any maybes in your statement. You cannot compromise by lynching one of your top scum picks. It really looks like you were positioning yourself for my flip. Considering you were pushing for me at the end I certainly do not see your vote on my wagon as a 'compromise.'
It was a compromise lynch because I considered Metrion more likely to flip scum than you. This is just nitpicky and terrible, I don't see how it could be at all indicative even if I used the wrong term to describe it.
Lastly, the town read on CN was not just wrong - it was completely uncalled for. Had you went with CN as a PL and a bad idea I could have bought that (though I clearly disagreed). There was nothing at all that gave an indication of town on CN.
That's your personal opinion, and I disagree. Of course you aren't going to be able to see indications of CN being town-aligned after he's flipped scum-aligned. But from my perspective yesterday, he appeared town-aligned.
I know you mentioned:
In post 527, iraonavp wrote:
In post 512, davesaz wrote:It would really help a lot if you would say why.
I am personally somewhat frustrated at being the main wagon at this point. I feel it is a direct result of me being incorrect (and the most vocally so) about Chaotic Neutrality's alignment.
And I understand being frustrated in this circumstance if you really are town. However, it is obvious that you, defending CN far more than CN himself, would be the number one candidate out the gate this day for many people. I can say that your position on CN is simply a part of why I am having issues with your slot.
That's shallow. It makes me a much easier mislynch, since most of this town seems to have difficulty getting past my defending of a scum-aligned player.
I'm also not surprised that Metrion hasn't voted me yet. My town-aligned flip will reflect very badly on him, and he's scared to play a part in it.-
-
iraonavp Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: December 1, 2015
In post 549, MoosyDoosy wrote:In post 76, iraonavp wrote:In post 36, MoosyDoosy wrote:hawkleader3's opening was awkward as hell and how he immediately backed off was terribad.
These were my immediate thoughts when I read the page 1 exchange between hawkleader3 and Syndesis. In particular, I disliked 20, as Syndesis did not give what was in my opinion an adequate reason for voting him. It felt as if hawkleader3 over-anticipated the validity of Syndesis' push, due to knowledge of his own scum alignment!
Additionally, in 64, I do not agree with his assessment of MoosyDoosy's trio of posts. It appears he is finding poor excuses to place a vote, which is consistent with his earlier awkward stances around voting.
VOTE: hawkleader3
Indeed, I also dislike Metrion's 65. His RV seems out of place considering that there is currently a serious wagon already taking place.
In post 65, Metrion wrote:Anyway, exactly what is scummy about having a chipper first post, Tool?
This soft defense of hawkleader3 is unaccompanied by any kind of clarification of his stance.
I feel that, especially if hawkleader3 is scum-aligned, Metrion is likely to be scum-aligned!
I believe both MoosyDoosy and Syndesis to be town-aligned, their posts seem easygoing and to represent a casual train-of-thought process which is more likely to come from town.
Toolenduso seems guarded, as if he has something to hide.
Thoughts?
I don't get the implication here. I haven't said "if hawk flips town metrion is 1000000% clear conftown", and that isn't implied at all by what I've said.
Metrion was subtly whiteknighting a town member here to avoid awkwardly joining the wagon and looking bad after the flip, rather than trying to dissolve the wagon on his partner.
It's also a very small part of my scum-aligned read on Metrion and in the infancy of my suspicion of him.-
-
iraonavp Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: December 1, 2015
In post 552, MoosyDoosy wrote:In post 532, iraonavp wrote:In post 531, Syndesis wrote:In post 530, iraonavp wrote:In post 529, Syndesis wrote:In post 467, iraonavp wrote:Well, here we have it!
Usually it is customary to request a claim before hammering, so please do not do that again, Swordsworth. I can understand that you might be new to mafia and not know that, though.
Did you really expect a claim from CN at that point in time?
Yes, I've read other games and isn't that usually what happens? Put someone to L-1, then someone else states intent to hammer, then they ask for a claim.
Wasn't deadline within...a couple of hours at that point? It was very likely CN wouldn't get a chance to claim.
That's a good point, I actually did not consider that! I can see where you're getting at with this line of questioning, but no, I would definitely have hammered Chaotic Neutrality even without a claim if the deadline loomed. I would have much preferred a lynch on someone I considered town-aligned than a nolynch. Probably how it would have gone was:
Me: "intent to hammer pls claim cn"
CN: *is afk*
You: "cn is afk"
Me: "k, ]v[]cnVOTE: [v/]"
Also, I seriously can't believe no one pointed this out. It's basically caught scum. Only reason why he would know CN was going to claim was if they meditated between each other in the scum chat that CN would claim if it looked like he would be hammered. Him saying that he didn't consider it is just a cover-up for it. Literally just hammer this man down.
Or if I thought he was town-aligned..? People being hammered before they claim is definitely not the norm.-
-
iraonavp Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: December 1, 2015
In post 559, toolenduso wrote:In post 543, FA_Q2 wrote:So a town read flipping scum actually reinforced your original scum read?
I find this very scummy as scum have a reason to avoid looking inconstant. A scum flip on a town read *should* cause you to re-evaluate your original positions, not entrench them. Point out those soft defense posts you infer about. I believe this is the first time you mention them.
...
Here you are claiming that one of your scum picks (me) is a 'compromise lynch' which is a false claim IMHO. You labeled me as scum - not as a maybe. I notice that you did not even include any maybes in your statement. You cannot compromise by lynching one of your top scum picks. It really looks like you were positioning yourself for my flip. Considering you were pushing for me at the end I certainly do not see your vote on my wagon as a 'compromise.'
These are good points.
No, they're terrible points. ;-;-
-
iraonavp Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: December 1, 2015
In post 568, Syndesis wrote:Let's do some pseudo-VCA while I painstakingly reread! How likely is it that...
...CN was bussed?
...scum was setting up to bus CN but did not get a vote on the wagon?
...there's scum on FA's wagon?
...there's scum off both wagons?
I cannot tell. In my opinion, this type of general analysis is less useful than actually considering individual players and their stances, for example what toolenduso did in 477.-
-
iraonavp Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: December 1, 2015
In post 575, MoosyDoosy wrote:Kill iraonavp !!
There is no need for such vehemence!-
-
iraonavp Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: December 1, 2015
In post 579, FA_Q2 wrote:In post 563, iraonavp wrote:
That's a large generalization, this is entirely dependent on situation. On d1, I don't try to resolve inconsistencies among my reads (e.g. [x] and [y] probably aren't both scum together but I read them as scum individually). This means that when a read is wrong, it doesn't make the others all wrong too.
And that really misses the point. You are being very defensive of the read itself. What interested me is the fact that you didn't even hesitate and entrenched your read rather than even look at the single positive scum slot and what that might mean. I don't see anything from you about the CN flip in general.
But I did look at what Chaotic Neutrality's scum-aligned flip meant, in my first post of the day!
In post 504, iraonavp wrote:In post 500, MoosyDoosy wrote:@iraonavp, what's your read on Metrion right now?
^^ probably like the most prevalent question right now.
Scum-aligned, it was not altered very much by Chaotic Neutrality being revealed as scum-aligned. The soft defense of Chaotic Neutrality makes me suspect Metrion to an even greater extent since Chaotic Neutrality was actually scum-aligned. It makes more sense to me that I was wrong about thinking CN was town-aligned but right about thinking Metrion was scum-aligned.
I am perhaps being defensive of my read because I feel your criticism is unwarranted.
Also:
In post 445, iraonavp wrote:In post 442, FA_Q2 wrote:In post 440, iraonavp wrote:In post 437, davesaz wrote:Can you give some details on the Syndesis read?
They... seem town-aligned? Their posts are genuine and train-of-thought, s that what you want to hear? I am not good at town-aligned reads. Let's say it is a "gut read", if that makes it easier.
This sounds like you have no true scum reads at all?
I don't understand where you're getting this from. I read Metrion, FA_Q2, TheCow and you as scum-aligned to various degrees. The deadline is forcing a compromise lynch.
How is this a compromise lynch? You want to lynch me and I am one of the leading wagons.
A compromise lynch because Metrion would be my first pick for today's lynch.
I am reminded about this scummy post. Here you are claiming that one of your scum picks (me) is a 'compromise lynch' which is a false claim IMHO. You labeled me as scum - not as a maybe. I notice that you did not even include any maybes in your statement. You cannot compromise by lynching one of your top scum picks. It really looks like you were positioning yourself for my flip. Considering you were pushing for me at the end I certainly do not see your vote on my wagon as a 'compromise.'
It was a compromise lynch because I considered Metrion more likely to flip scum than you. This is just nitpicky and terrible, I don't see how it could be at all indicative even if I used the wrong term to describe it.
It's not 'nitpicky' and it has nothing to do with using the 'wrong term.' It has to do with positioning.
I feel I have made it clear enough in my explanations that what I meant to convey was that I still read you as scum-aligned, but would prefer to lynch Metrion. The awkwardness you perceive in my positioning comes only from perceived misuse of the term "compromise lynch", of which it has been established that we interpret it in different ways.
You do scummy things and then demand that they really are not scummy.
That is generally how one responds to inherently flawed accusations.
Lastly, the town read on CN was not just wrong - it was completely uncalled for. Had you went with CN as a PL and a bad idea I could have bought that (though I clearly disagreed). There was nothing at all that gave an indication of town on CN.
That's your personal opinion, and I disagree. Of course you aren't going to be able to see indications of CN being town-aligned after he's flipped scum-aligned. But from my perspective yesterday, he appeared town-aligned.
I cant see 'indications' because his ISO was essentially blank.
In post 372, iraonavp wrote:That said, I don't actually think that Chaotic Neutrality is likely to be scum-aligned, and I would not vote to lynch him. I feel that his responses to pressure looked like genuine town irritation. I don't support his retaliative push on toolenduso, but I think it came from a town-aligned thought process (from reasoning of toolenduso is wrong, therefore he's scum-aligned, which despite being wrong doesn't make Chaotic Neutrality more likely to be scum-aligned). I don't see why a scum-aligned player would push their accuser (if toolenduso was town-aligned, which I feel is likely to be true), since all that would do is convince their accuser that they were more likely to be scum-aligned.
For reference, this was why I did not support the lynching of Chaotic Neutrality. Even if you do not agree with these reasons, you cannot deny that they exist.-
-
iraonavp Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: December 1, 2015
In post 578, toolenduso wrote:Huh. I just realized that I'm more or less townreading everybody on the ira wagon.
Same here, other than TheCow.-
-
iraonavp Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: December 1, 2015
In post 583, MoosyDoosy wrote:Seeing as to how early game was me and hawkleader as primary suspicions and CN was pushing onto me, the other Mafia was likely on hawkleader. Which means that someone who gave me an early town read was likely the other Mafia. Just giving me an early town read makes no sense in the first place to be honest.
^^ So looking at the people that town read me, iraonavp looks worse.
That's literally my entire argument for voting him but it makes sense when you think about it.
I don't get this sort of "one of the people with [x] stance is scum-aligned" reasoning, in the same way that I don't really get the "how many scum-aligned players were on the wagon?" kinda thing. It's rather bland PoE, and you could very easily be thrown off by people doing things you don't expect.
I really don't know what to say about reading you as town-aligned, either. I've made efforts to convey my ideas transparently (most of the time), so I don't see what else you'd expect me to say if I really read you that way. Your earlier play seemed like a surefire way to lose credibility and mark yourself down as a policy lynch or a policy vigilante shot, and I don't see that coming from a scum-aligned player.-
-
iraonavp Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: December 1, 2015
In post 577, Raskolnikov wrote:@Moosey iraon doesn't look that bad tbh. Shaky earlygame but his near-deadline and day 2 posts are alright.
I personally disliked Raskolnikov's entrance and eir somewhat dismissive mention of my wagon. While I know that I am town-aligned, I can't shake the notion that e is trying to fight against a wagon which has already progressed reasonably far, to make emself look better if I end up being lynched and flip town-aligned. I think it's a reasonable possibility that e is attempting to "bus" Metrion while not expecting Metrion to actually be lynched today.
The way e mentions Metrion in 572 with an understanding of who Metrion voted for (presumably e looked through Metrion's ISO for this, I'm not sure one would notice that simply from looking through vote counts), and then follows up with an implication that e read Metrion's ISO and got a new perspective on him in 590 bothers me more than perhaps it should.-
-
iraonavp Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: December 1, 2015
In post 604, MoosyDoosy wrote:THIS WAGON WILL HIT MAFIA BOYS LET'S GO
I seem to remember you having a similar confidence in hawkleader3 being scum-aligned, and he flipped town!-
-
iraonavp Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: December 1, 2015
In post 602, Raskolnikov wrote:In post 601, iraonavp wrote:
The way e mentions Metrion in 572 with an understanding of who Metrion voted for (presumably e looked through Metrion's ISO for this, I'm not sure one would notice that simply from looking through vote counts), and then follows up with an implication that e read Metrion's ISO and got a new perspective on him in 590 bothers me more than perhaps it should.
Don't be absurd. Why would you think it's a new perspective? I thought it was rather obvious what happened but I'll point it out for you anyways. When I first arrived I had first impressions and skimmed a few people's isos including you, but nothing too thorough. Just to get some notion of the main events and the context for what's happening day 2. Later, before actually voting, I re-read things in more detail to see if I got the wrong feelings from my first impressions. But when it comes to scummiest there wasn't really a difficult choice. Okay maybe you would do things differently but don't pretend what I did was weird when it wasn't.
I don't see why anyone would play this way, but it's a plausible enough explanation to make me reconsider that point as null.
-