Open 193 - Friends and Enemies: It's over!

[SerialClergyman]

Also - why no Trollspeak?

[Vi]

@ all: Where are the votes?

On DDD.
You are correct that I severely DON'T disagree with the charlatan hate, but I want to focus on DDD right now.

[SerialClergyman]

Zzz

[Vi]

Zzz

Go ahead and say it.

[SerialClergyman]

Can't say anything, asleep from your boring DDD-hunt.

[SerialClergyman]

Here is the link to the DDD game i referred to.

If you promise not to look at my reads, this is what's making me very hesitant about the DDD wagon. I made almost identical points to you, I think.

[Zorblag]

@SerialClergyman, I use Troll speak on and off for entire games if I've got the choice. Having to quit for a day in Mini 880 was irritating so I decided before this one started that this would be an off game; I was using it enough in a thread in the Mafia Discussion forum to satisfy my needs at the time.

-Zorblag R`Lyeh

[SerialClergyman]

We even ditched the chumps who didn't want it last time!

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Charming.

I wasn't trying to convince you, I was asking if you would tell me your send best scum read.

I try, I believe it was PorkchopExpress when I reread the game.

[Albert B. Rampage]

DDD! Content! Omg...

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

I've also lost many games for not lynching anti-town lurkers. Lurkers hurt games. Period.

No, lurkers you can't get a read on hurt games. If you can get a good read on a lurker then there is no need to care about their activity status.

I'm glad you've put so much effort into your "case" against me to even convince anybody of anything; so congratulations on that effort.

Thanks.

Blah blah blah, I couldn't get a read on you. I don't like that in any game I'm in. You wanna actually post your thoughts on me; or anything? Apparently not, you just wanna attack the person who called you out. I'd be flabbergasted if you could prove anything other than you attacking me and (just now) defending your position of not providing content.

You couldn't get a read on me; sounds like the problem is on your end, not mine. And I did post why I didn't like your actions in regards to voting me and the calling the team. How is that not giving my thoughts on you? I took your actions, I critiqued them, I used that critique to take action; that would fall neatly in with my definition of scumhunting.

To your "calling the team" thing; you really think I'm blind?

Probably not, unless you have a special braille keyboard.

In any case, I called out the three people that at the time I felt were scummiest. I could see them all on a team just due to the fact that they're all scummy in my eyes at that time. With my vote I wanted you to weigh in, and now it's fulfilling a purpose of being on somebody scummy.

So instead of just calling out the three scummiest players you ignore previous warnings to not try and link players and intentionally try to link players. Sounds like weakness of individual cases and thus trying to use links between them to strengthen points against all, when that was laid out specifically as a bad idea.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

And speaking about Mafia of Order, DDD, are you trying to insist that you didn't really contribute there similar to what you are doing in this game? I don't believe that's true and we can go look through the first 14 pages there if you'd like.

I was dead by page 14 in that game because of short deadlines, but go ahead and look. In that game I had three posts in the first five game days; so in the first five days I was actually more active in this game then that one. So yeah, if I'm getting slagged for no content then the parallel seems very similar to draw since that's exactly what you slagged me with in that game.

[charlatan]

I echo ABR and Ojanen about semantics. Your point about factual inaccuracies, which you rely upon a lot, is nothing more than a semantic issue that is so close to what you actually said as to be almost indistinguishable. I'd also like to hear what parts of VP's postings you didn't agree with.

Firstly, props to those who answered questions for SC before he fully responded (ABR, Ojanen). That is helpful.

SC, I did not agree with VP's assertion that Ramp was personally touchy.

Charlatan, I don't like it when people question gut. Players rolling off gut reads is the way to play. In fact, you're attacking me not for having a gut read on VP but then expanding upon it later.

I'm going to assume you worded that wrong. Correct me if I am mistaken. I am not attacking you for a gut thing. Gut things are good. I'm attacking you because your vote was silliness and guts until VP started criticizing you, and then it became serious.

Can you show me again where you address the fence-sitting/convenience accusation?

My 19 and 26 in isolation might be the most helpful. I'll try and summarize: I fail completely (still, and I doubt it will change) to see how finding two people scummy is negated by them arguing. If your top two suspects all game began arguing, say, Day 3, would you then decide that you were wrong about one of them? I understand how it could appear convenient (another thing I've already said), but there's hardly any way to defend against that accusation. Two people pinged my scumdar while most people were still with one foot in the RVS or not even playing yet. They happened to be arguing.

294 which you refer to regards to the "factual inaccuracies" is about semantics to me, then pointing out earlier posts where you suspected VP/ABR.

If an integral part of someone's case on you is that you never talked about an argument, and there are multiple posts right there in the thread with you talking about the argument, that matters. If you think it doesn't matter, I cordially invite you to consider this point: you're wrong.

What you're trying to tell me now is that you thought that I voted you there because of irritation at you and that further I didn't just give that as my reason either because as town I was making a mistake in my fit of pique or as scum I was manufacturing a reason. Have I got your take on my play there correct? Because that doesn't seem particularly simple to me and I don't think that it should be what you'd actually expect from my play.

I feel like we're going around in circles here, and clearly you're not ever going to think that my suppositions in the matter are reasonable. I'll be as succinct as possible (very difficult for me!): you called me out for an issue of playstyle. I responded to it. You responded to that with another paragraph or so. Then you devoted a scant 25 words or so to your reason to vote me, and the reason was underwhelming in comparison to the reasoning I've seen from you before. As such, I figured you got a generally scummy vibe and voted with one reason that stood out to you. I think you make assumptions about my meta on you, which is interesting. This line of conversation is probably not helping anyone out, and frankly stopped being fun to me (like the rest of this game) pages and pages ago. I'm not going to revisit it. Take that for what you will.

As for Albert B. Rampage, he's done more than simply say that your case is so bad.

Where? He posted something of substance in regards to it in 329, but only after I pointed all that out. And as I suspected, it took poking at his ego to make him do it.

I was dead by page 14 in that game because of short deadlines, but go ahead and look. In that game I had three posts in the first five game days; so in the first five days I was actually more active in this game then that one. So yeah, if I'm getting slagged for no content then the parallel seems very similar to draw since that's exactly what you slagged me with in that game.

DDD, if it's not much trouble, can you give me your top three suspects?

[Vi]

Here is the link to the DDD game i referred to.

If you promise not to look at my reads, this is what's making me very hesitant about the DDD wagon. I made almost identical points to you, I think.

1. Lack of scumhunting.
2. Playing outside of town meta (in my reads I find him to be more active and more firm when town. Here he still hasn't placed a non-random vote until after Monkey claimed, without doing more than vague reads previous to that. His activity was also decidedly low until I specifically attacked him.)
3. A few AtE-style posts, like telling me his opinion of my ability was slipping or calling monkey 'clownshoes'.

From what I can tell in multi-isolation, 1 doesn't relate. In that game, DDD bothered to participate at all. Here he only posted when his name was called to OMGUS and produce some charlatan-level reasoning (see below).
2 is not entirely similar either. I have

scum

meta on DDD... and I also have Town meta on a helpful and fairly awesome DDD in Zachtown, although that was after he replaced in D3. While I may be willing to buy that DDD plays a reactive game D1 - which goes against what he told me elsewhere, but whatever - I'm not entirely naive enough to be burned by the same tactic twice.
3 is not really applicable in this game as far as I've noticed, and isn't really that good an accusation in the first place~

I will grant that his response to the quoted post (in that game) makes me wonder about my previously positive image of DDD-Town. I'm curious as to what DDD thinks of his own play in the game you linked.

---

No, lurkers you can't get a read on hurt games. If you can get a good read on a lurker then there is no need to care about their activity status.

You couldn't get a read on me; sounds like the problem is on your end, not mine.

No, seriously, am I the only person who wants to scream right here?

The case against Amished is trumped-up beyond what it's worth. If you're going to be suspicious of someone over calling the team, try Sando, who tried to sway ABR into "calling the team" by asking if char/DDD/Amished were group scum.

---

I'll read charlatan's post when I'm not on a time budget and I'm not getting whitescreened left and right.
Also, see V/LA in sig.

[Zorblag]

@charlatan, I am sorry if you're not enjoying the game thus far. If you're done with the topic of my vote for you then I've seen what I want to from it so I'll let it drop. With Albert B. Rampage I'm not interested in going through to find for you the places I think he's been doing things. I already pointed out one aspect but past that I was really only interested in letting people know what I expect from him and what it seems to me that he's doing. If you'd like to pursue an inactivity case on him I'll let him defend that or not past here as he sees fit.

@Debonair Danny DiPietro, I can't tell right now whether you're trying to draw something from a particular person or whether you're still using a more general stalling stance while you're getting general bearings. I'm not at all convinced that you would believe a number of the things that you've been saying so they really should be smoke and mirrors for something else. Would you be willing to elaborate at all on your PorkchopExpress answer or was that given mostly just to give an answer at all?

@PorkchopExpress, Sando and Scien, you've all been busy for your various reasons, fine. When should we see more of an impact (again, perhaps for some) in the game? Are your current votes relevant do you think? If so I'd love to hear why. If not I'd love to see one that you thought was.

-Zorblag R`Lyeh

[charlatan]

Ok, what about that is random? You came up with a reason for voting someone, voted them and just chucked on the ‘random’ tag. This is exactly what I found scummy, and all you can say is here’s some reasons why it wasn’t random, but I think it was random anyway.

Sando, you've been going after him for this point for quite some time now, which is interesting. At this point, a bit later in the day, do you still feel it's as important as it was when we were fresh out of the RVS?

Anyone:
Is it just me or did the VPB/ABR thing go; VPB and ABR go at each others throats, then decide to jump on to the person who attacks them for it. This seems a little staged to me…

I think "staged" is a little far, but as I said early in something seems inherently off about it to me.

---

@Amished: What are your thoughts on Scien these days? He was one of the three in your early-game scumteam call, but I haven't seen you say anything about him since then, really, unless I have missed it.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

From what I can tell in multi-isolation, 1 doesn't relate. In that game, DDD bothered to participate at all. Here he only posted when his name was called to OMGUS and produce some charlatan-level reasoning (see below).

It looks like it took me about four days to get any sort of decent content going in Mayor Mafia and even then SC was unimpressed with it. In Mafia of Order I had all of three posts in the first days of the game and the VPB was unimpressed with the content I eventually generated. So in this game it took me four or five days to get any content going and Vi and others are unimpressed with it. Really, you can nitpick if you like but this is a fairly established and current (town) meta for me in this sort of game.

2 is not entirely similar either. I have

scum

meta on DDD... and I also have Town meta on a helpful and fairly awesome DDD in Zachtown, although that was after he replaced in D3. While I may be willing to buy that DDD plays a reactive game D1 - which goes against what he told me elsewhere, but whatever - I'm not entirely naive enough to be burned by the same tactic twice.

I will grant that his response to the quoted post (in that game) makes me wonder about my previously positive image of DDD-Town. I'm curious as to what DDD thinks of his own play in the game you linked.

Really, you had a positive image of me in Zachtown? I mean I had my theory right (ignore the double vote and one of the PR claims had to be scum), but I picked the wrong PR claim to push, had mediocre reads on people, and only got ten posts off that convinced no one to listen to me before my death.

But let’s work with that assumption, you had a positive town impression of me as a day two town replacement, SC’s previous experience with me was as a productive D3 town replacement, and one of my best games recently was as a D2 town replacement in Amish Mafia as we had a great last three days to win the game. And then conversely we have me-town getting burned as “scum coasting” D1 in Mafia of Order, SC chipping me-town for the same D1 in Mayor Mafia, and me-town drawing attention here D1 for the same thing, I think the meta should be well established with all of that. Now that doesn’t mean I couldn’t be intentionally playing against meta (I’m not but whatever), but to suggest that my behavior in this game equates to my scum meta is just fallacious given recent history.

~~~

No, lurkers you can't get a read on hurt games. If you can get a good read on a lurker then there is no need to care about their activity status.

You couldn't get a read on me; sounds like the problem is on your end, not mine.

No, seriously, am I the only person who wants to scream right here?

If Amished had initially said that he wasn’t getting a read on me that would’ve been acceptable. Instead he put it together as a lurker pressure vote, without actually attempting to engage me in a fashion that would actually help him get a read on me.

The case against Amished is trumped-up beyond what it's worth. If you're going to be suspicious of someone over calling the team, try Sando, who tried to sway ABR into "calling the team" by asking if char/DDD/Amished were group scum.

Umm, agreed about Sando, but I can only reply to something after it’s been posted and I was using my time last night to reply to those people who were expecting a reply. My next available opportunity to comment on it is now, where I’m agreeing with you about how it’s bad.

[Amished]

@DDD: Yes, I can't get a read on you cause you don't post for shit.

Calling the team is a "bad idea" for this setup cause technically you can be seeing the Mason grouping connections rather than the Mafia connections (or so what I thought ABR was worried about or whatever). Also, they're all individually scummy; while also having the potential to be together. I haven't looked too hard into scum-type interactions where they have to distance a bit, etc.. so that's an admitted "weak" point in my "team" calling.

I'm not blind because if I know that there's mason pairings, I can discern which of the two types of connections I'm seeing; pro-town or anti-town.

I actually encourage you to to back to read the post where I had my accused calling the team:

I actually wouldn't doubt an {ABR/SC}/Scien/Ojanen scumteam. OJ is the one I'm least confident about.

At the time this is my top 3 suspects. I was questioned about the {ABR/SC} thing; but nobody else seemed to have a problem as they understood what I meant. If you'd like, you can question me about why I think what I do about each player; but nope, you accuse me of doing something bad (which is bad for you only because ABR said so) without knowing why it was bad or why I said what I said. You apparently don't care what the motivations were behind what I said, since apparently you don't wish to question me about it.

This post should've gone yesterday, but I lost internet access while writing. I'll catch up now.

[Vi]

@DDD:

Re: meta - Meta, Town or otherwise, is not a direct reason for my vote on you; and I'm fairly positive I made that clear in my previous post. I know you are capable of lurking through a game and getting away with it. Needlessly to say, I'm not interested in allowing that - regardless of whether that's your habit.

The level of scumhunting between now and when SC accused you in that other game is different. Your first (and basically only) public point after being told to produce content was to attack your attacker. Surely that's not the only noteworthy, voteworthy thing that has gone on up to this point?

While it's true that Amished didn't give you a direction in what to comment on when he voted you, I don't think that's particularly scummy considering he wanted to see

anything

from you. As it turns out, the point is moot now, as what you posted certainly allowed us to get a read on you.

The two quotes I posted are both false. Your alignment is

my

our business; if you're not going to open yourself up to allow a read, the problem is most certainly on your end. Further, I would rather have someone who contributes versus a lurking Townie; anyone who has been in a game where someone gets Cop-investigated and then drops off the page entirely can relate.

Re: Zachtown - I think my perspective is colored by me being scum and you not being gullible.

Re: Replying to things - You were well within your ability to reply to Sando's post, but you claim it wasn't your responsibility until 1) I mentioned it 2) while posting toward you. Penn and Teller disapprove.

[Amished]

Well, that was nice as I didn't have to catch up on nearly as much as I thought I would.

@char: Scien has been put on the back burner for now; since I was attacking ABR (and saw that that was going less than nowhere and I didn't want to keep repeating myself about me "hating" ABR) and now called on somebody who didn't have as much content as most of the people around. The two lingering occurances that I remember specifically are still the SC/ABR vote on VP and DDD's omgus.

@DDD: Do you really think that I could not get a read on a player if they weren't addressing me? I pressured you, a lurker, into posting your thoughts. If I couldn't get a read on people by seeing their interactions with yet another group of people, I'd be a pretty piss poor player. In fact, I don't even think that people who play their first games are that bad as they read other people's posts and get a feel for them. Your "reasoning" for voting me seems particularly not very thought out, which is a rather serious thing to me.

You see: when town votes for somebody, be it pressure or calling somebody scum; they have a full reason why they think somebody is scummy; and can explain it thoroughly with the posts that have been there at the time and not have to add or change around meanings cause they know exactly what they meant and why they meant it. Scum, on the other hand say that something is scummy often because it appears so on the surface. They don't try to understand the reasoning behind it because they don't want to (due to the fact that they know the reasoning is from a townie) so they don't bother to really dig into something the way I would expect an experienced townie to do so.

For example: when you say that my vote was scummy for asking you for content; you don't think about how me reading your content could help me get a read on you. When you say that my calling the team is scummy, you don't think about why I said what I did or why I'm acting towards other people the way I'm acting.

As another example: Charlatan questioned me about my {ABR/SC} thing as it's not readily apparent why I would say something like that; but he wanted to understand the reasoning behind it.

To tie this into the wagon on Char: I think his wagon is being unnaturally inflated. I couldn't even tell you who is on the wagon apart that I know that it's larger than I would expect it to be for what he's said. From my experience, I've seen cases built up over a solitary line and pretty much always hit a town. It's especially easy to nail somebody to a wall because of one line as scum. I've even done it as town a couple times, and it's hit town. I remember a newbie game I got into a 5? page quote war with another townie over a simple misunderstanding of a line; which lead to a perfect scum victory as I was leading for them and could be killed for WIFOM purposes. I remember in NY91; there was a case against somebody for having his words twisted into him thinking that "he was the only vanilla townie" and I'm pretty sure that he ended up town. I attacked ... not sure at the moment, he was the town cop inheritor.. in LOST mafia with me scum for a stupid comment. I attacked ConfidAnon (doc) in Last Man Standing for a single line.

These types of attacks hit town far too often in my experience to be comfortable with this wagon at all. It's something that I want to look into for more detail when I have time, but I'm celebrating my birthday tomorrow night after a family christmas in the morning; so I don't have the time I want to do what I want to do.

[Vi]

Amished, what do you think of charlatan's case on SerialClergyman?

[Ojanen]

294 which you refer to regards to the "factual inaccuracies" is about semantics to me, then pointing out earlier posts where you suspected VP/ABR.

If an integral part of someone's case on you is that you never talked about an argument, and there are multiple posts right there in the thread with you talking about the argument, that matters. If you think it doesn't matter, I cordially invite you to consider this point: you're wrong.

Yeah, I was bringing up though that the VP stuff was a brief mention of this

SC, I did not agree with VP's assertion that Ramp was personally touchy.

before joining him in agreeing and then much later the incorrect late LAL thing echo; so something it seemed you almost flipped on (yeah, you've explained the whole different OMGUS's thing) and an incorrect thing.
But blah blah, it's going in rounds already I think.

Charlatan, my main problem with you is how the serial case feels.
I'd love it if you could tell more exactly what you thought when you unvoted Albert, did you have a conscious "attack is the best defence" type of thought process and went looking for another case or what were you thinking?
I don't get what meaningful questions I answered for him prematurely since he had already responded to the case at the time I first read it.

I'm swamped with a project I had forgotten must be turned in on Monday, more tomorrow after I've finished a couple of books on the subject. There's a couple of players I wanna look more.
Serial, I will join the charlatan wagon if or when I see it fit. Unless you feel me trying to glean a better read by questioning first is fake/pointless I don't see the problem with my approach (in that case you can point which part feels fake and I can try to explain what I'm trying to reach). If I don't get a satisfactorily confident read I'm gonna be wimpy around wagoning already very pressured people, sorry. Part of it is confusing tones, part of it is noticing being slightly lost on D1 lowish content strategy (I hardly ever start games from scratch, last town one was /inv), part that I'm vulnerable to feeling sorry. If I'm confident enough, you'll see me jump to throats, but not before.
I maintain a bad feel about PorkchopExpress.

[VP Baltar]

No, lurkers you can't get a read on hurt games. If you can get a good read on a lurker then there is no need to care about their activity status.

Well, I don't think anyone is reading you as town atm, so....

SC, I did not agree with VP's assertion that Ramp was personally touchy.

And this is the grounds that you are calling me scum over? I'm unimpressed.

In Mafia of Order I had all of three posts in the first days of the game and the VPB was unimpressed with the content I eventually generated.

In fairness, that was the first time I saw "trend analysis" wasn't it? You have to admit that is a bit strange and cryptic. It threw me off.

you can nitpick if you like but this is a fairly established and current (town) meta for me in this sort of game.

What does "this sort of game" mean?

I think the meta should be well established with all of that. Now that doesn’t mean I couldn’t be intentionally playing against meta (I’m not but whatever), but to suggest that my behavior in this game equates to my scum meta is just fallacious given recent history.

Ok, what do you think is the cause of your recently atrocious D1 play?

[PorkchopExpress]

@Sando: Because I didn’t know who I’d vote for when I chose the reason. So the reason wasn’t arbitrary, but the votee was in effect. Look, I’m not in any mood to go in circles on this and couldn’t really care if my vote was sufficiently arbitrary enough for you to consider it a random vote. Make it relevant or move onto something with more punch to it. Allow me to get you started: The only way this could be a scummy move is if it was distancing from SC, or Vi I guess. So, which one is likely scum in your eyes?

You seem to be a little preoccupied with side issues at the moment and I’m starting to get scummy vibes from it. Especially since you’ve barely spoken about the ABR/VP discussion amount.

DDD’s contribution is still underwhelming. It consists of suspecting or criticising those that focus on him.

No, lurkers you can't get a read on hurt games. If you can get a good read on a lurker then there is no need to care about their activity status.

You couldn't get a read on me; sounds like the problem is on your end, not mine.

No, seriously, am I the only person who wants to scream right here?

No, you are not.

If Amished had initially said that he wasn’t getting a read on me that would’ve been acceptable. Instead he put it together as a lurker pressure vote, without actually attempting to engage me in a fashion that would actually help him get a read on me.

Considering that there was on-going discussions in the game, it would seem to me that he wanted you to contribute to them... or, at least, explain why you found nothing scummy in them. That could have helped the rest of us to get a read wouldn't it? This case is pretty much bunk.

@Charlatan: Considering that VP was who you focussed on up until the unvote, it seemed a fair judgement to make. Still getting scummy vibes from this since the SC vote is attached to a very unconvincing case.

@PorkchopExpress, Sando and Scien, you've all been busy for your various reasons, fine. When should we see more of an impact (again, perhaps for some) in the game? Are your current votes relevant do you think? If so I'd love to hear why. If not I'd love to see one that you thought was.

-Zorblag R`Lyeh

Well, school holidays are a busy period for me, but they are only going for another week or two. As to votes, I'm getting pretty good vibes from SC.

My top suspects are currently DDD, Charlatan and Sando.

Unvote. Vote:DDD

@Ojanen: What's your read of Sando?

@SC: It's been made clear that you haven't stated that Sando is town this game, but what is your read on him?

[charlatan]

Charlatan, my main problem with you is how the serial case feels.
I'd love it if you could tell more exactly what you thought when you unvoted Albert, did you have a conscious "attack is the best defence" type of thought process and went looking for another case or what were you thinking?

I am not sure what you mean about "attack is the best defense", but maybe you can reword it for me? Are you asking me if I attacked elsewhere to defend myself? I unvoted Ramp because attacking him was not really getting any response out of him, and since several people were explicitly condemning it it would be obvious to Rampage regardless of alignment that he's free to ignore me, as the wagon would not grow at that time. He is still a top suspect, but there are more people in the game and I think my vote is better served elsewhere at the moment.

SC, I did not agree with VP's assertion that Ramp was personally touchy.

And this is the grounds that you are calling me scum over? I'm unimpressed.

I am not currently calling you scum over that. When we were barely out of the RVS, that was worth prodding at to me, though. I haven't been hung up on that in quite some time now, though I am still being asked about it quite a bit.

@Charlatan: Considering that VP was who you focussed on up until the unvote, it seemed a fair judgement to make. Still getting scummy vibes from this since the SC vote is attached to a very unconvincing case.

It's not an unfair assumption to make, but just happens to be incorrect in this case.