In post 189, Varsoon wrote:
Ozgin:
Three votes in 6 minutes is fast for a smaller game. This is the first 10 pages in a 21 player game. Go look at other 21 player games, especially with multiball setups.
I agree that poor reasons for voting are poor.
However, my reasons for following Cheetory on the wagon were trust in both Cheetory
as well as
trust in Cheetory's approach of applying earlygame pressure via a strong early wagon onto a questionable player.
If you think there's better reasons for joining into a wagon on early D1, propose them.
No one's done anything incriminating enough to warrant an actual-factual town-whole wagon.
In fact, every wagon will likely be a bit scum-sided given our teams.
So calling out people on a 3-person wagon is derisive and hurts game momentum.
Furthermore, your post against me tries to scumpaint me over lack of your own understanding. Just because you don't comprehend a motive or a post does not make the poster scum--it only speaks to your own perception. This forces me into assuming one of two things; You lack perception or you are trying to leverage a lynch onto me. I'd rather assume you're a good player. So, I've got to figure that you're aligned differently than I am or you're bad at the game.
So, that's why I called you out. I wanna see your feathers get a bit ruffled here. I want to see if you'll either prove to have made a mistake in reading me or if you'll prove to be someone that town needs to lynch.
P-EDIT:
I'm down for an Ozgin wagon~
VOTE: Ozgin
So this was prompted by a vote and unvote on him from me, and I felt this was a huge and blow-uppy response to a very small event.
No, this was prompted by your play through the game and your scumpainting of me. I wanted to direct pressure onto you. The fact you felt this was a huge response means you felt the pressure. I don't like that you're trying to play this off as me having some blow-up response. This is pretty casual fab, broheim.
He refutes me voting point about him blindly trusting Cheetory with some nonsense about how he "trusts Cheetory's approach of putting pressure on players on a wagon of a questionable player," which there was no indication of. In fact, he soft-buddies Cheetory later (I think he calls him things like, "my beloved Cheetory.").
I've already talked about the 'buddying' thing. I've actively tried to make allies with Cheetory and Bookitty so far. This was outright claimed in the thread and discussed to death. Here, you're trying to rely heavily on a scum association with the rhetoric of buddying, but I'm not even being subtle. I'm literally saying that I trust Cheetory's judgment. It's also incredibly dismissive to blow off my explanation of agreeing with putting pressure on an early wagon/questionable player as 'nonsense'. C'mon, dude. Uncool.
Then he brings up a point about how every wagon is going to have scum on it, which wasn't a point I was arguing (as if he pulled a random topic out of his ass to discuss). He follows this with some backhanded dribble about how I'm either stupid/wrong or a scum, and he'd "rather believe that I'm a good player" so he assumes I'm scum.
You were arguing that it was scummy to buddy up with players, right? In this post, I'm making a defense for an early alliance as well as the observation that even if we lynch scum, it won't be a 100% town wagon. I was decrying your hesitance over co-operation because I found it against the point of the game and likely to mire us in a directionless argument rather than moving forward with good content wagons. I'm saying that if you continue to stand against co-operation (which you have), you're only a hindrance to town's efforts, which likely does make you wrong/stupid or scum. Sorry if that's too insulting. Town needs focus and direction, especially on D1.
He closes with something about ruffling my feathers, and he mentions how it's "why he came after me," like he's trying to spin this post like it's an attack rather than a defense, but he's really just defending himself almost without prompt. In fact, he only voted me in a P-Edit to hop on a wagon.
I hopped on here because Titus voted for you and I realized this would be a good chance to shift direction and apply pressure to your slot. That's why it came in a P-Edit. Furthermore, this is me saying this is largely a pressure vote. And it is an assault. I'm actually fine at defending myself while persuing other interests and pushes. I decided that I want to push you. Don't try to spin this as some OMGUS-defensive rubbish, because it is not.
In post 191, Varsoon wrote: In post 185, Ozgin wrote:I'm going to bed, I'll be back tomorrow.
This game is heating up, and I kinda like it. This is the most excited I've been ever to play a normal game as a citizen.
You wanna talk rhetoric, I think it's awkward that you're referring to yourself as a citizen rather than town.
In most games, you're gonna be town. In this game specifically, you'd be a citizen if you were town-aligned.
So this speaks towards specific attention payed towards a claimed alignment flavor.
Which, to me, feels stilted, like you double-checked the OP to make sure you were calling yourself the right thing.
Make note of how he starts the whole "citizen" speculation here. He makes it a point to say he thinks I "checked the OP to make sure I was calling myself the right thing," yes?
In post 214, Varsoon wrote:
Also, you mention in 185 that this is the most excited game you've had to play as citizen in a normal, implying that you're referring to multiple plays as citizen, as if you're using citizen to just mean town. Does that make sense? It doesn't seem like you're referring to yourself as a citizen just here, and the inconsistency in use of citizen/town is weird.
And we can stop debating the citizen thing. We'll know when we know.
Now look how he says here (referring to the same post) that he's recognizing exactly what I did:
Referring to myself as a citizen and using it to just mean town.
If he's so skeptical of my usage of the word "citizen," then how did he perfectly recognize exactly what I was actually meaning? He's using the citizen point to argue against me to some audiences, but then here he's recognizing what I really meant.
Okay, you seem to be misunderstanding my point entirely. Let me walk you through it, maybe we can come to common ground?
You made the aforementioned post saying that you're excited to play as a citizen in normal.
I thought that Citizen was an awkward choice of words here.
I went to the OP to make sure that was the flavor of the game
Turns out that's exactly the only sample role PM given
I figure that if you were scum trying to stick to the flavor, you might have had to check the OP in a similar way for versimilitude
I figure that if you were town just claiming town, you wouldn't be so precise with the language
This is later backed up when you start being less precise with the language, using town interchangibly, which makes me feel like the citizen thing was more forced/awkward especially after calling you out on it.
So this isn't some disparity of what you 'meant' when using the word Citizen, this is an issue of you not having a town role PM and then checking the OP to see what town was called rather than just saying you are town.
Again, this is a weak-as-fuck point and honestly pretty null. I was just using it as a means to apply pressure to you to see how you would handle it. I later come out and say that.
Then he tried to sweep it away with "we can stop debating the citizen thing, we'll know when we know," but now it's the one and only prominent point against me for my wagon.
No, it isn't. The reason I am still driving your wagon is because you're abrasive, overtly defensive, quick to misappropriate other's posts, and generally terrible at handling pressure. That, coupled with awkward interactions with other players (your tunneling versus how some players seem to come out of the woodwork to defend you), is a lot of why I'm pushing you still. Ultimately, I think you've got a good chance of flipping scum, so I want for your lynch. Plus, I kinda just want you not to be in the game due to how anti-town you've been with actively trying to bog down the game and hinder town focus (via insistence on long posts, arguments that sprawl pages, so on and so forth).
Titus was focused on the citizen deal--but not in the same way I was (Titus saw your citizen claim to be a Vanilla Town claim and called it out for being very awkward) but is also pushing you for several of the reasons above, I believe.
In post 290, Varsoon wrote:
My basic point is that the site-meta calls the green-aligned players town. It struck me as awkward that Ozgin would vary from talking about 'town' and 'citizen' (in contexts of multiple games and this one), calling himself Citizen when there was more direct pressure on his slot. There's also a bit of an issue over whether or not that was a VT claim, but I didn't really want to engage on that point because if it was--it's best to keep that from being made too public info. Ultimately, it read to me like Ozgin wanted to claim town, read the OP, and called himself 'citizen' instead of just town. It's not an amazing point, to be honest, but it is
something
. I also wanted to see how Ozgin would handle the pressure of a wagon building on him (I noticed he had a vote on him, which is a lot of the reason why I stopped sheeping my beloved Cheetory).
At this point, I want to see where this goes.
Ozgin seems to participate and 'get excited' as the game heats up in these ways, so regardless of his align, this also gets him posting a bit more (hopefully) which will make reading him easier (hopefully) for all of us (hopefully).
And right after he talks about how we can stop debating about it, and how I used it as if it meant town, he's using it to argue against me. (Also, here's the beloved Cheetory post I remember seeing). But then the
next fucking sentence
is about how he doesn't want to over publicize the point,
even though he's still bringing it up.
Then he reiterates the stupid argument that it's me checking the OP to make sure it's the right thing to say, and backpedaling yet again to call the point "not amazing, but something."
Already addressed in earlier points. I'm reiterating and explaining here. I fail to see how that's 'backpedaling'. Here, I don't want the game to become ten fucking pages talking about this Citizen thing. That's why I'm trying to nail down what I meant by it because it seemed like people were still confused and because I wanted to be done with it.
Then he talked about how he wanted to get me posting more "hopefully" (even though I was posting a lot) and then implies that everyone is having trouble reading me, which wasn't a thing at that time. He's like trying to gain a friendship with everyone and pull them all towards me.
Crazy, right! It's like I want more people on your wagon for more pressure and maybe even a lynch! And I always want more content from players, bro.
In post 303, Varsoon wrote:I think LaLa is low hanging fruit. There's a general evasion happening where LaLa isn't really addressing worthwhile points being made against their slot.
Does that make it scum? Eh.
Feels more like path of least resistance.
I'd actually be okay with a lynch there since LaLa isn't providing much for the game.
That said, I really like the most recent back and forth between Ozgin and Cheetory.
Ozgin's very abrasive and feels like he's wheeling back especially in post 300.
@Ozgin
: So LaLa's got a 'shit push' (I'd prefer you actually detail why the push is bad, which I've inferred to be due to the really bogus reasoning that if House isn't 'confirmed town' this early then he must be scum--I think that's absurd reasoning and the push on House is an attempt to drum up pressure, which is what I disagreed with before, since so much of the wagon was rooted in that bogus reasoning and House didn't seem to feel that pressure at all) and has reacted poorly to people's votes and questioning? That's a solid enough reason for voting there. Do you have other reads? Do you think that Scumteams would really pile on someone so much this early?
@Bookitty
: You've grown to become a player who I put a lot of stock in. You've got very strong direction as town, and in this game, even if you're scum, you'd need to eliminate the SK and the other team. I want to know your reads and thoughts on the game. I'd like to see you be more vocal. I want your voice to be in this game. In all the 21 player games I've seen, Town only wins when there are dominant town voices. I want to hedge my bets on you, Boo. Get in here!
@RadiantCowbells
: Please don't phone this game in. You're an easy lynch and I'd like you to be more outspoken and here. I don't want to see you either skim by or get lynched based on path of least resistance.
So he makes another post that is internally flip-floppy here. He starts with this little thing about Lala just being and easy lynch, but then says he wouldn't mind it because Lala isn't providing enough.
How is that flip-flopping? Lala was an easy lynch because of how apparently scummy Lala was. I was willing to go wagon lala to add more pressure there and hopefully get lala to produce worthwhile content or die.
He calls me abrasive and claims that I'm "wheeling back" when I was merely answering Cheetory's questions. He then goes on to agree with my points on Lala (kinda contradicting the whole, "Lala is just easy" concept), and asks me about my reads or whatever, so it's almost like he's agreeing with me and saying that I'm correct, but apparently still sticking to the vote on me. K.
You came off as pretty defensive in tone when I was reading that post, ergo the 'wheeling back'. Agreeing with your points doesn't contridict that Lala is easy at all--I'm agreeing that you're pushing Lala for okay reasons and that it'd be easy to push Lala. In your mind, does an 'easy push' not equate to a player being scum? I don't understand this sentiment. I'm saying that you're voting Lala for reasons that are understandable, but Lala has made himself an easy target, which means that you'd easily look like town for pushing Lala. I was hoping to discern if you were just falling in with people that were lobbing easy votes with easy reasoning or if you had something more to add to that wagon.
The rest of this post is him stroking Bookitty and RadiantCowbells and saying, "Oh please, please please please friends, I want you to be vocal and active! I truly value your opinions, please come play!" (which Bookitty actually took the bait and said his reaching out to him was towny, lol). This is where his hard-buddying becomes really flamboyant.
I don't really want RC to be my buddy. I want RC to produce content because RC has problems with content production.
I want Bookitty to produce the content I usually get from Bookitty because it helps me solve games. I want to ally with Bookitty because Bookitty is a player that is generally fun, agreeable, and has strong forward momentum in games. If that's bait, then fuck the idea of a fun mafia community. I, for one, would prefer players have the capacity to work together rather than being a bunch of abrasive, cynical, with-held jerkbags. Together, we have fun and thrive and can push games in a fun direction. That's what I'm calling for here. I'm not trying to be subtle about it at all, and I don't understand why you have such an insistence on this sort of camaraderie being scum-driven.
In post 327, Varsoon wrote:Not callin' anyone lurkers--but I do want to call for some people to keep the game's pace in mind and make an effort to contribute from the onset.
@Ozgin:
I mainly wanted to sort out the motivations of people that I was skeptical about who are on the wagon (I'm still not excited about the LaLaDucks wagon's voters) and since your were vocal I decided giving attention your way could be a strong means of figuring some things out.
I feel like I have a stronger grasp on my read on your slot and the LalaDucks wagon. If I had to choose between the two, I'd choose Ducks.
VOTE: LalaDucks
It needs to be made accountable.
@Egg:
Damn right I'm buddying Bookitty. Bookitty should be my buddy. If enough buddies get together, they can form a strong pact that'll destroy the scum. At this point, I don't care if my buddies are scum or third party. We need to eliminate an entire team or we lose. I've been in multiball before. If scum and third party double-down on their kills on town (and if town has killing abilities they mess up too), then we could easily lose several of our members after a mislynch. It's best to have everyone working together rather than against each other. I'll make friends and buddies for that cause.
@Bookitty:
<3 I know we've all got busy lives. I just wanna see you throw down in this game and bring the thunder! Take the game at your pace, of course. I just wanna see the quality of play I usually see from you, y'know? A call to arms, of sorts. So far, you've been awesome. I wanna see you keep being awesome.
Here he claims he targeted me because I'm vocal, which is stupid because there are plenty of other vocal players.
...so it's stupid to try to discern the reasons of one of my scumpile for being on a wagon I think is too-easy and might be a VI? I targeted you because I new you would respond (due to your vocal nature), I did not understand your reasons for voting laladucks, and because I wanted to put pressure on you.
Then, he keeps acting all apprehensive about the lala wagon
as he fucking climbs aboard it.
Then he says that, after he's read me and lala both, he feels that lala is more worthwhile to lynch. I agree, then and now, but he goes back on that pretty easily.
Yeah, it's almost as if I'm unsure of if lala is scum-being-dumb or town-being-scummy-and-an-easy push and I hesitantly decide to pressure it, ultimately with the idea that it'll at least give us some worthwhile info on flip.
Then he goes on to defend his buddying, and further perpetuate it by doing it some more with Bookitty. At this point, he's damn near flirting!
We've been over this. Are you jealous, Ozzy? I can flirt with you, too~<3
I'm sorry we're so back-and-forth this game. Do you like pizza? I'll buy you one with my Tax Refund when it comes in, if ya want~
In post 364, Varsoon wrote:Oh shit Varsoon wants to work with other people early on in a large game!?
Must be scum!
Except I'm not.
I don't follow your reasoning here, House.
I can also provide you with a shitload of meta evidence where I've done this as town before and not done it as scum.
But meta's dumb so let's not go there.
He sarcastically defends his buddying as working with other people. Then he does this weird, "I can provide meta!" followed by "Meta's dumb, so let's just not." That implies he either doesn't have the meta to show, or he's trying to get people to stop asking questions.
I do have the meta to show, but digging up games is boring and tedious. Furthermore, I don't put much stock in meta, so while I'd be willing to pull some links out, I really would prefer not to. Ergo, the post made here.
In post 384, Varsoon wrote: In post 379, Skybird wrote:So far House gives me town vibes. Comes in the game all abrasive and not giving a crap.
I fail to see how that gives you townvibes but I guess so?
@House:
We're in a 14-3-3-1 setup.
Follow me here, okay? Follow me.
That means that regardless of my alignment, I've got 3 other factions to defeat for my wincon.
Regardless of Cheetory and Bookitty's alignments, they've got 3 other factions to defeat for their wincon.
AS TOWN, it's more important than anything to defeat the other factions with a lynch because
that's the only fucking way they will be able to.
So it
absolutely does not matter who allies together at this point in the game
because no matter the overlap, we will have two common enemy factions.
Encouraging
focus
and
direction
in a large game is good this early on.
Encouraging
dialogue
and
interaction
in a large game is good this early on.
Your efforts to call that out as scummy are noted, but I will not have you dismantle my attempt to get this fucking game running, House.
Either get on the helping side of things or be derisive. But know that if you stand against me, you're already dead.
Make sure that when you read this post, you memorize this sentence, especially the underlined: "So it
absolutely does not matter who allies together at this point in the game
because no matter the overlap, we will have two common enemy factions."
He's still defending the idea that buddying = working together to catch scum. He's claiming to trying to be "getting this game running," which is bullshit and he knows it. He's just trying to make friends with everyone so nobody want's to lynch him.
I'm hardly trying to make friends with everyone. Again, you're refraining to hyperbole and loose conclusions. I'm trying to make a tight alliance so that I have some people to have fun with and give direction to the game. If anything, wouldn't these actions paint a bigger target on my head? Especially if I lead a bunch of lynches on town? It's not like I'm being subtle. It's not like I'm asking people to defend me or any shit like that. I'm trying to move the game forward--to my wincon. This isn't in some cynical scum self-interest. We could argue this shit all day, though, which is a distraction town doesn't need. It's a playstyle difference that you'll have to nut up and deal with.
In post 395, Varsoon wrote:Jesus, House.
I'm
NOT
working with people regardless of their alignment.
I'm saying that if it turns out my read is wrong, I don't care.
Furthermore, other people's read of me shouldn't matter as much this early in the game because direction, focus, dialogue, and interaction is more important.
Anyway.
We could bicker all damn page about this and we almost have.
I'm more interested in your reads, how you feel about the Lalaladucks wagon (both the slot and the people voting it) and if you'd be interested in being my friend.
Well, did you memorize that line? The line he perfectly contradicts with, "I'm not working with people regardless of their alignment," even though he said exactly that. Then he tries to just shuffle away this argument with, "Anyway, we bickered too much about this, what are your reads?" - Kinda what he did about the arguments against me using the word "citizen" in place of "town." And he tries to quickly go over to the topic of reads, exactly what he did with me.
Again, for the sake of direction, I try not to get mired in pointless arguments that distract from the game. Also, you don't seem to understand my point about working with people regardless of alignment. I spell it out in detail in post 562. Go read that.
In post 423, Varsoon wrote:VOTE: Ozgin
I felt like Lala was low-hanging fruit but the recent lala posts made me conflicted enough to swap votes.
On one hand, recent posts from laladucks were cogent, apologetic, and generally understandable.
On the other, that's a method of survivalism that SK would almost certainly -have- to employ.
I kinda wanted to put more pressure there but this seems to be all we'll get.
House and Sky are town, imo. I'd like to avoid that for now.
Back to me, and it's not even like his reads changed on me. There's no indication of that. He's just jumping on me because he wants to get on a new wagon.
He's saying he doesn't think lala is low-hanging fruit anymore. The next two lines are saying, "Yeah he's good, but he could also be bad." He concedes his own point with some dribble about him wanting to pressure lala more and failing, and that (I guess) is supposed to be the reason he switched to me? Blegh, icky votes are icky.
In post 438, Varsoon wrote:We're in a 14-3-3-1 setting. When I say SK, I refer to that 1.
Why mention it?
Because it exists.
"Oh I'm bringing up the SK because he exists! We have to worry about 1 of 7 scum, and the 1 who is alone and working by themselves as opposed to the two scumteams of 3 who are working together, solely because he exists!"
In post 446, Varsoon wrote:SK's going to worry about their survival the most in this setup, and is very likely bulletproof. They need to avoid being lynched. People who are overly defensive and self-preserving may fit this. In order for us to win, we need to lynch the SK.
Any of the other scum teams can win even if they lose members, but the SK loses if he dies.
They have to play to survive.
@RadiantCowbells: Post! Become relevant! Get in the game. Also, uh, what Titus said.
Prepare for another one of his contradictions between posts: He says, "In order for us to win, we need to lynch the SK." Remember this.
He's making light allegations towards lala being SK and making brazzen setup speculations in regards to the SK.
However, I kinda wanna just point out that the way SKs are successful are more or less by hard-buddying everyone and being the universal friend. If they're BP, they don't have to worry about NKs, so their only real scare is being lynched. That sounds awfully familiar... I was just reading someone's ISO who does this. But anyhow...
In post 450, Varsoon wrote:We're -not- SK hunting, chill out.
I'm saying that it's legitimate to consider someone's survivalism and defensiveness as a part of perhaps being an SK.
Because we know there's one in the setup.
I'm saying that we should consider everything we have before us, rather than turn a blind eye to certain aspects of the setup when considering players and their play.
"We're -not- SK hunting, chill out." -> What a lovely thing to follow "We need to lynch the SK." Then the rest of the post is more dribble about how we need to consider all things, blah blah.
Overall, Varsoon is wishy-washy. I should have kept on him from the start. He contradicts himself every few posts and is generally wishy-washy on all of his points. I think he's a good person to lynch. Not just wagon for pressure, but I think he's a good D1 lynch.
