Mini 1715 - Z - Game over!

[Garmr]

Aka you can use it as a excuse latter on only scum need that kind of excuse

[WoodyWoodpecker]

Oh I'll probably do something stupid but I own up to my mistakes when/if I make any

[Thor665]

How is voting someone based on past gaming experience any worse than wagoning on someone who hadn't posted yet?

One serves a functional scumhunting purpose while the other is reaction testing while presenting bad logic so that the only reaction from either alignment would be 'your logic is very bad'.
Why do you consider them identical?

Please, let us discuss what you found scummy about my play in the game so far.

Never said I found anything you did in the game at the point of my vote scummy - it would be illogical if I had and I suspect you're aware of that and are presenting silly challenges that mean nothing.
Why?

Also, why are you being obstructionist with your answers?

Please quote me doing so and explain the obstructionism and we'll discuss it.
I haven't been - I just [ongoing-ed] and decided not to dwell on it when Bella revealed further lack of logic - but now that you agree with it I'd love to hear why. Feel free to awe me - currently I like the idea of lynching you even more now.

[Thor665]

Oh I'll probably do something stupid but I own up to my mistakes when/if I make any

Your current mistake is not having a vote in play.

Vote Ciara?

[Ciara24]

How is voting someone based on past gaming experience any worse than wagoning on someone who hadn't posted yet?

One serves a functional scumhunting purpose while the other is reaction testing while presenting bad logic so that the only reaction from either alignment would be 'your logic is very bad'.
Why do you consider them identical?

I consider them identical in this scenario because they are both based on out of game factors. You are wagoning Nacho's vote on me, which is based on his ability to read me in previous games, and nothing to do with this particular game.
Voting for someone because they were scum in a previous game is, again, nothing to do with this particular game, therefore they serve the same purpose here.

Both are reaction tests - by wagoning, you're testing who reacts to the wagon, who joins you and who has good reasoning for joining the wagon - it;s an open test.
The other is reaction testing a specific person to see if they rise to the bait - 'scum in other games means you must be scum here'.

Please, let us discuss what you found scummy about my play in the game so far.

Never said I found anything you did in the game at the point of my vote scummy - it would be illogical if I had and I suspect you're aware of that and are presenting silly challenges that mean nothing.
Why?

In 23, you stated you would like to 'move back to the point where we actually discuss what you think is scummy in this game?'
I was simply attempting to open up the question to you. Would you like to actually discuss what you think is scummy in the game, or was that just directed at Bellaphant?

Also, why are you being obstructionist with your answers?

Please quote me doing so and explain the obstructionism and we'll discuss it.
I haven't been - I just [ongoing-ed] and decided not to dwell on it when Bella revealed further lack of logic - but now that you agree with it I'd love to hear why. Feel free to awe me - currently I like the idea of lynching you even more now.

Again, in 23, you stated that you were being a touch obstructionist with your answers. I simply asked why.
All I saw in your posts was snark - I wouldn't have called it being obstructionist, but I was interested in why you thought that your own play was going that way. Who are you trying to obstruct with your answers?

[Thor665]

I consider them identical in this scenario because they are both based on out of game factors. You are wagoning Nacho's vote on me, which is based on his ability to read me in previous games, and nothing to do with this particular game.
Voting for someone because they were scum in a previous game is, again, nothing to do with this particular game, therefore they serve the same purpose here.

What?
Why in the universe would you think that i thought Nacho had a read on you worthy of being sheeped at this point in time?
I guess if you in theory thought that...for some reason...then that would be equally (well, in my opinion - vastly moreso) worse than Bella's vote.
but that is not my stated reasoning at all - I said I was wagoning you. Bella could have voted you in Nacho's place and my action would have been the same.

Both are reaction tests - by wagoning, you're testing who reacts to the wagon, who joins you and who has good reasoning for joining the wagon - it;s an open test.
The other is reaction testing a specific person to see if they rise to the bait - 'scum in other games means you must be scum here'.

I will agree they are both reaction tests on some level - though I think i argued a rather salient point to how they are different types.

I was simply attempting to open up the question to you. Would you like to actually discuss what you think is scummy in the game, or was that just directed at Bellaphant?

I am discussing tells in this game - I offered the first proffered read of the game, as a matter of fact. Bella has not. So I don't see why you think this is a valid rebuttal comment.

Again, in 23, you stated that you were being a touch obstructionist with your answers. I simply asked why.
All I saw in your posts was snark - I wouldn't have called it being obstructionist, but I was interested in why you thought that your own play was going that way. Who are you trying to obstruct with your answers?

What part of my previous answer confuses you when I said 'I am not'?
Though I am mildly horrified that you would take my own word for how I'm playing once and not the second time - why is that?

[WoodyWoodpecker]

Your current mistake is not having a vote in play.

Well I have to have a reason to vote somebody and right now I don't have one.

[Garmr]

Keep the walls to a Minimum early game please

[pistachi0n]

VOTE: WoodyWoodpecker

I don't like that he says he's a bad player, I especially don't like 51 where he says he'll probably do something stupid.

[WoodyWoodpecker]

Honesty is scummy?, here I thought lying was scummy. Things are different on this site

[Nachomamma8]

Took a while to find some games, you have a few games where I guess you played with somebody. I.will say I lol'd at the game where you posted I am Groot all game

VOTE: unvote

It was a fun game!

But seriously never try to undersell yourself

First of all, if it was actually Woody's intention to undersell himself to cover up for mistakes down the road, do you really think he would have included the "

apparently

I'm not as good a player I think I am" bits? It seems to me like if he was trying to make himself look like a bumbling VI, he wouldn't include the parts about him thinking he's a good player.

Second of all, why do you think that scum would actually attempt a strategy like that? I don't really think that townies not being confident in their own play is all that uncommon, so it doesn't seem like that reliable of a scumtell to me, even if there's some reason that I'm not picking up on for scum to do it.

I'm kinda fascinated by this because you discussing your ability to read me well seems almost like a threat. We've only played two games together - both times I was town. I'm going to pretend you feel threatened by me being such a great player since forming a read on me is, after all, your highest priority.

I've seen your towngame twice. I think that if there's something off with your play, I'll be the first to pick up on it, and am the only player in the playerlist who actually posts a meta-threat to you. Forcing a hypothetical you!scum to react to me specifically makes your job harder and also, in some strange inexplicable way, makes me focus in heavier on you so that I can catch you early if you are scum.

I'd like to hear from the remaining players before I place a vote.

Why? Who would you vote here if you didn't arbitrarily decide to wait for everyone to post?

The other is reaction testing a specific person to see if they rise to the bait - 'scum in other games means you must be scum here'.

This is assigning purpose to a vote that didn't have any.

VOTE: WoodyWoodpecker

I don't like that he says he's a bad player, I especially don't like 51 where he says he'll probably do something stupid.

I hate this vote.
You're sheeping Garmr without being honest about the fact that you're just sheeping Garmr.

[Radja]

I'm here and will read this evening!

[Nachomamma8]

I'm here and will read this evening!

I'll vote you.

[KarmicGuide]

The reason given doesn't make sense for a vote. Looks like she's not being truthful

It's a common approach in games to focus first on reading people you're familiar with. I don't see any reason why you wouldn't believe my explanation unless you thought the only purpose of a vote was to express suspicion, which is something that would surprise me since I thought you were a much better player than that.

Apparently I'm not a very good player at all, I definitely think I'm better than I actually am but I suck.

And yes the point of a vote should be to pressure or express suspicion. There's other ways to communicate what you were trying to do without voting.

I honestly think you didn't read the spoilers (I know I hadn't yet) and instead of owning up to it came up with something else.

Why are you spending time analyzing yourself? Inspecting yourself for tells?

VOTE: WoodyWoodpecker

[Thor665]

Your current mistake is not having a vote in play.

Well I have to have a reason to vote somebody and right now I don't have one.

Keep the walls to a Minimum early game please

Skip them if they bug you.

[Garmr]

Your current mistake is not having a vote in play.

Well I have to have a reason to vote somebody and right now I don't have one.

Keep the walls to a Minimum early game please

Skip them if they bug you.

What do you think of nacho?????

[zakk]

EXPERIMENT NOTES 1.3

SUBJECTS ASSERTING AGGRESSIVE ACTIVITY:

WoodyWoodpecker [3] Garmr, pistachi0n, KarmicGuide
Ciara24 [2] Nachomamma8, Thor665
KarmicGuide [1] davesaz
Thor665 [1] Bellaphant
Bellaphant [0]
davesaz [0]
eventi [0]
Fro99er [0]
Garmr [0]
gummmybear [0]
Nachomamma8 [0]
pistachi0n [0]
Radja [0]

SUBJECTS DISPLAYING PASSIVE TENDENCY:

Ciara24, eventi, Fro99er, gummmybear, Radja, WoodyWoodpecker

[WoodyWoodpecker]

Why are you spending time analyzing yourself? Inspecting yourself for tells?

I haven't spent any time analyzing myself, not sure how you.jumped to that conclusion

[WoodyWoodpecker]

I've seen your towngame twice. I think that if there's something off with your play, I'll be the first to pick up on it, and am the only player in the playerlist who actually posts a meta-threat to you. Forcing a hypothetical you!scum to react to me specifically makes your job harder and also, in some strange inexplicable way, makes me focus in heavier on you so that I can catch you early if you are scum.

This is kinda weak actually. If a player plays differently than you remember, it doesn't mean they are scum. There are reasons why a person may play different.

[WoodyWoodpecker]

I'm here and will read this evening!

What time zone are you? Cause for me that was night time and now its morning

[KarmicGuide]

Honesty is scummy?, here I thought lying was scummy. Things are different on this site

Why are you spending time analyzing yourself? Inspecting yourself for tells?

I haven't spent any time analyzing myself, not sure how you.jumped to that conclusion

Post #24, and then post #59 above. To me, it overall feels like you're talking about yourself a lot, instead of paying attention to other people, especially for the amount you've posted. Post #59 just feels too defensive.

For the record, I don't care that you said you think you might be a bad player. Some people are self-deprecating, some people are not. Garmr and pistachi0n's points about you maybe underselling yourself to cover a misplay later seem like a stretch, for exactly the reason Nacho said - it wouldn't work. I don't care exactly why they voted you, though. Maybe they just got the same bad gutread on you that I did.

I also think that your posts so far, about seashells, Nacho being a girl, about Demolition Man, might be intentional spam. You're trying to look like town by posting a lot, but posting a lot of nonsense doesn't help town.

[KarmicGuide]

Keep the walls to a Minimum early game please

Is it annoying to see walls of text when you already know who is mafia and who is town?

[Garmr]

Keep the walls to a Minimum early game please

Is it annoying to see walls of text when you already know who is mafia and who is town?

Not really when thor was my scum buddy in my first game with him I loved it. It depends on case by case bases.

[WoodyWoodpecker]

Post #24, and then post #59 above. To me, it overall feels like you're talking about yourself a lot, instead of paying attention to other people, especially for the amount you've posted. Post #59 just feels too defensive.

You know its possible to do both right? I can respond to people who talk to me AND focus on other things.

I'd also suggest you learn the meaning of defensive before tossing that around. If you actually knew the meaning of defensive you couldn't say post 59 was defensive.

[WoodyWoodpecker]

I also think that your posts so far, about seashells, Nacho being a girl, about Demolition Man, might be intentional spam. You're trying to look like town by posting a lot, but posting a lot of nonsense doesn't help town.

You obviously don't have a sense of humor, noted. I do however. I'm.probably going to crack jokes alot cause that's my personality.

Calling me apologizing to nacho for calling him a girl as intentional spam is kind of a reach though don't you think? If somebody insulted you, wouldn't.you want them to apologize?

I don't think these posts by me make me look town, but they don't make me look like scum either. They just make me look like me. If somebody town reads me for making jokes, they are probably a bad player or scum trying to buddy me