Micro 279: Uncommon Mafia - OVER

[DarkLightA]

May I ask how you weight the town-ish-ness of his posts, and what tipped you off regarding him not being scum? Specifically #42 vs. #64+65

[Alduskkel]

If Bert were to near or be at L-1, what will be your course of action?

Am I on the wagon or off the wagon?

What exactly about his #27 do you find confusing? If you would point it out, I would be more than willing to help try and understand it with you, if it's not too much trouble.

I tend to break things down through intense analysis. Why, please, do you find his two posts to be good responses. The more you can explain your very thoughts and actions in-depth, the more I will be willing to trust you. It's the very nature of the beast, this game.

1. There's no logic to it -- it's just a casual, "well, you can not vote scum if you like." If that makes sense to you as anything other than a joke statement (and I see that implosion has said it is) then feel free to tell me.

2. The responses are genuine. Why are they genuine? Tone. Past that you're not getting any more information out of me. Partly because there isn't much else to it, but mostly because I dislike explaining my townreads unless it becomes very important.

Speaking of tone, I dislike yours. You buddy up to Klick by telling him he's intelligent/smart and so on, and essentially place the burden of proficiency on him. Additionally, you're being excessively ingratiating. "Why, please, ..." "if it's not too much trouble." are examples of that. Bonus points for trying to set up gaining your trust as a goal for me.

Klick and Alduskkel are engaging. That doesn't clear them, but it does prevent inquisitive jihad.

Is this seriously all you're getting from these questions?

Vote: Wake88

---

In terms of DarkLightA vs. implosion, I'm thinking DLA looks scummier in the exchange. In particular, due to post 70. The random congratulation for semi-colon usage + the next sentence are completely disjointed tonally (apparently tone is a big thing this game) from the rest of the post which is accusatory. The bolded parts of the quote seem... random? Finally there's an accusation of OMGUS just thrown in at the end.

[Wake1]

*Reveals

Lightning Gloves

*

[Bicephalous Bob]

wake why did you say you only played one game as scum

Please reread my post, because I never said that.

You'd learn that,

on MS

, I've only played as Scum once.

don't dodge my question

also why are you and klick pretending not to know each other

[Wake1]

If Bert were to near or be at L-1, what will be your course of action?

Am I on the wagon or off the wagon?

✦1

What exactly about his #27 do you find confusing? If you would point it out, I would be more than willing to help try and understand it with you, if it's not too much trouble.

I tend to break things down through intense analysis. Why, please, do you find his two posts to be good responses. The more you can explain your very thoughts and actions in-depth, the more I will be willing to trust you. It's the very nature of the beast, this game.

1. There's no logic to it -- it's just a casual, "well, you can not vote scum if you like." If that makes sense to you as anything other than a joke statement (and I see that implosion has said it is) then feel free to tell me.

2. The responses are genuine. Why are they genuine? Tone. Past that you're not getting any more information out of me

✦2

. Partly because there isn't much else to it, but mostly because I dislike explaining my townreads unless it becomes very important.

Speaking of tone, I dislike yours

✦3

. You buddy up to Klick by telling him he's intelligent/smart and so on, and essentially place the burden of proficiency on him

✦4

. Additionally, you're being excessively ingratiating. "Why, please, ..." "if it's not too much trouble." are examples of that

✦5

. Bonus points for trying to set up gaining your trust as a goal for me

✦

.

Klick and Alduskkel are engaging. That doesn't clear them, but it does prevent inquisitive jihad.

Is this seriously all you're getting from these questions?

Vote: Wake88

✦7

✦1

Either.

✦2

Why?

✦3

?

✦4

Point it out and walk everyone through it, because that makes no sense.

✦5

You haven't read Mini 1516. What you mistake as ingratiation is actually politeness.

✦6

This makes no sense either.

✦7

So you're voting for a guy you don't understand, who also happens to be contributing quite a bit. Let's go in-depth here.

[Wake1]

wake why did you say you only played one game as scum

Please reread my post, because I never said that.

You'd learn that,

on MS

, I've only played as Scum once.

don't dodge my question

also why are you and klick pretending not to know each other

Let's be clear. I never said I only played one game as Scum. On MS, I've had only one game. I haven't dodged your question, so stop lying.

What do you mean about Klick? We had one game together in Masons and Mafia, and that was about, what, over a month ago? So... what are you doing?

[Bicephalous Bob]

accusing you of stuff, trying to get you lynched

so why did you say you only played one game as scum on ms even though no one asked

[Wake1]

accusing you of stuff, trying to get you lynched

so why did you say you only played one game as scum on ms even though no one asked

Do you assume that providing information when not asked means one is Scum?

I do this quite a bit, because knowledge helps Town.

[Bicephalous Bob]

How does that information help town?

[Wake1]

How does that information help town?

Because you are provided an example of my one and only game on MS.net as Scum.

You can analyze that information, and use it as a rough frame of reference.

[Bert]

In fact, I think everyone in this game will end up really easy to read.

That's good to hear. Hope you're town then after the 264 triumph you had prior to this game.

As for Wake's questions, I probably won't get to them until I am on my laptop at school. I'm guilty of just scanning them as I'm not in a very digestive mode of skimming home for the holidays

[Bert]

EBWOP: I like reading people's answers to his questions, but my content I will give for the near future is pretty scarce, so answering them would be tedious and really get menowhere.

[yessiree]

^That's really unfortunate for you and really scumvenient for you at the same time

[Bert]

Yessiree!! it is!!!

[yessiree]

was that calling my name or just concurring?

[BBmolla]

Wake has requested replacement. Searching.

[Bicephalous Bob]

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Alduskkel

Implosion, DLA, what are your reads on Alduskkel?

[DarkLightA]

Alduskkel gets a neutral-to-scum read from me.
I think #22, #29 seem somewhat scummy. He has a careless attitude, but I can't tell whether it's from him not really caring that much as a townie, or from acting like he doesn't care as scum.

His vote on Wake in #76 is highly suspicious IMO, seems to have no ground but a weak OMGUS.

[BBmolla]

Aegor replaces Wake88

[Aegor]

Wazzup!

@Mod: Could you include the latest VC in the OP?

@Bert: Although Wake88 is no longer with us, and you must deal with a less electrifying (haha) substitute, I would appreciate responses to his questions anyway.

@BBob: I am obviously not able to glean telepathically Wake's motivations for posting that he was in one MS game as Scum, but what about his explanation was scummy to you? God forbid someone provide information freely in a transparent manner.

@Alduskkel: Same caveat as Bicephalous; being ingratiating is now scummy? Have standards of charity and etiquette really sunk that low? Granted, buddying should be scrutinized, but buddying should under almost no circumstances be a primary reason for voting someone; rather, it should confirm a suspicion that is formed on other grounds.

VOTE: DLA

@Klick: I hope that I am easier to read that Wake88, but do let me know. I hope that you sent my regards to Donovan Hock.

[PhDScar]

Mind explaning the vote?

[Aegor]

Yes.

[PhDScar]

Okay.

[implosion]

He "really" didn't like it, and yet it "seems" like I'm trying to establish meta. That change in tone feels slightly awkward. Attacking someone for "trying to establish their own meta" is also suspect; this is an action which is in no way scummy, so DLA tries to frame it as scummy by adding the part in quotation marks at the end, which is essentially a strawman attack on what I did. All I did was refute an attack by showing an example where the premise of that attack was true and the conclusion of that attack was false. DLA proceeded to paint that as scummy by rephrasing it, which is definitionally a strawman attack, which is scummy because it's an attack that lacks genuineness (i.e., it's attempting to misrepresent how scummy something actually is rather than genuinely attempting to assess each person as town/scum).

The reason I found it (very) suspicious was because, with no one asking you to, you linked to the other game. In addition to what I mentioned before, I find it scummy how aware you are of your actions as town, it's like your play in this game is intentional based on your town meta.

Ironically, you can find other examples of me doing this as town if you look into my meta... I am fairly aware of my town meta and I do try to play to it as scum. I also inadvertently play to it as town, seeing as it's... y'know, my town meta.

I appreciate you calling me out on that logical fallacy, it is indeed a straw man fallacy, which I used in order to accentuate my point, of course not meant to be taken literally, but to give a clearer indication of my thoughts about the topic. I do find your language very suspicious here "...this is an action which is in no way scummy,

so

DLA tries to

frame it

as scummy by adding the..."

Your post reeks of OMGUS.

OMGUS has a very specific definition: to vote someone because they voted for you. I did not, in any way, use the fact that you voted me as justification for voting you.

[implosion]

Implosion, DLA, what are your reads on Alduskkel?

Getting townier after post 76.