Open 432: Robo's PYP (Game Over)

[Scigatt]

First!

Now, as we all know, its a well known fact only town ever post first in a thread, therefore, I am now conftown!

Vote:Slandaar

[Scigatt]

First!

Now, as we all know, its a well known fact only town ever post first in a thread, therefore, I am now conftown!

How valid is this tell if it's not mentioned?

[Scigatt]

not likely to say, but there's a 2/13 chance of it being true lol

Where did you get 2/13?

[Scigatt]

@Scigatt: why do you dislike my first post?

@absta: Why did I need to vote?

Shamrock ignoring the 'big' issue is the scummiest thing in this thread
VOTE: Shamrock

Hmm...pointing out a questionable town read on yourself in the RVS, what's not to not like?

...Damn, that sentence was awkward.

Tbh, it wasn't that bad at all, but at that stage it was enough to vote on.

[Scigatt]

Hmm...pointing out a questionable town read on yourself in the RVS, what's not to not like?

...Damn, that sentence was awkward.

Tbh, it wasn't that bad at all, but at that stage it was enough to vote on.

Explain questionable in more detail.

Explain why you are actually voting me quoting a post and voting while saying 'Well actually it wasn't that bad but its RVS lol' is not a reason.

Do you believe I believe my first post? do you think I think it actually makes me conftown? what was the purpose of my post?

1.I will confess that I can't say why self-reporting a questionable town tell in jest is scummy, but it did bother me on a gut level. I was trying my best given the one post before my vote.
2.I quoted that post because that's the post you asked the question in.
3.I don't know if you believe it, do you?

Your questioning after the vote does seem town, though.

Unvote

[Scigatt]

And other than our hydra, I don't think I've played with anyone else on the player list. Hi everyone.

Hi!

for the post and vote, obviously.

Why would he need to explain his motivations for his post? It was the first post in the thread. The very beginning of the RVS. At this point, his motivations don't matter simply because of the response it got. Just like if no one paid any mind to it, we wouldn't need to know his motivations. He didn't even make the post in a serious manner. It's not like he said "I'm [insert role here]!"

I'm inclined to agree with this post.

[Scigatt]

I was told that I don't know the meaning of investigation because I said I hadn't been doing so when I hadn't been doing so.

I got treated like I was saying it was a bad thing when all I was saying was that I hadn't done so and I was confused that people were acting like there was something fishy about being willing to stand by the idea that I hadn't done so. Especially when the use of the word investigation had only been used in a derisive way, perhaps to take the heat off the conversation that had been going on beforehand and my notice of it.

I got treated like calmly replying was instead uncalm and irrational, and like being upset at repeatedly being told I was doing things I wasn't doing while completely ignoring my ACTUAL intent is somehow scummy and attempting to draw emotions.

After asking to be done with such a stupid "argument" and getting back to the things that I actually was trying to draw attention to, you know, discussion and whatnot of my real vote and my real reason for voting, and the ideas behind it, I was told that I might be attempting to make a scene so as to distract from something important.


I talk in wordy posts, I examine things the only way I know how to, I often post a few times in a row, and that's how I've always played. I certainly consider this attempt to undermine my sanity (calling me irrational and overemotional and repeatedly ignoring what I actually did while simultaneously using something I never did and my supposed reaction to it to make me look bad, instead of addressing what I was -really- reacting to) strange and upsetting and I would like it to stop.

If you think this is distracting from real content, as I do and have stated beforehand, then how about let's get back on to something else and stop accusing me of being emotional while I'm being ganged up on over trying to make a simple correction.


Specifically to starbuck: (I'm sure you're a nice person and all but the way you're talking down to me as a person, I don't appreciate at all)

nitpicking- I'm not providing examples for this. If you want to re-read the game then you can do so, there are your examples. Every post I've been making has been treated as irrational and instead of anyone, anyone at all noticing that I"ve said in damn near every post that I never did x or y, I keep getting told "but when you did x" or "it's not a bad thing that you did y". I'm literally just beating my head on my desk wondering if I'm being trolled. I know that you know that I said a)why I really voted him b)that this seems strangely like a good way to forget that line of conversation c)that I hadn't been launching an investigation and had only made one post voting and two posts explaining that vote to someone who had asked at the time that I was spoken to. The only thing I ever attempted to do was to calmly, politely, point out that you're saying things that are inaccurate, and in return I've been told I'm acting a bit nutty and defensive. If I'm acting defensive it's because I'm being attacked over something that doesn't make any sense and I'm getting sick of it. I've asked to drop it and it's not been done. I cannot help if I need to reply to people when they tell me I'm doing things I'm not doing. Maybe I should just lurk instead like the rest of the players are doing.

I don't care if you care how excited I am about the game. I was explaining why I might possibly have shown some sort of attitude without realizing it (and it wasn't out of nowhere, it was because someone said I had been acting rashly) and apologized if that was the case. I did not bring attention to myself, though by replying at all I seem to have enhanced it. All I can say is that you're vastly misinterpreting my reasons for doing things and if you want to understand it you might read my posts outside of iso.

Starbuck, I'm not going to read the game for you. You can read the game yourself and you can see for yourself who said my my line of reasoning was dumb (please tell me you're not asking me to provide proof that the word dumb was used, because I don't really want to argue for pages over semantics while we ignore that you know what I meant by it.)

I'm also not going to explain to you what things I got told I was doing, because as I said before I've stated that very thing in damn near every post I've made and if you can't figure it out from context clues then maybe I was premature in calling you all smart individuals. Don't treat me as though my issue is with the word investigation.

I don't exactly know how saying "I didn't do that, can you show me why you think I'm doing that" and then saying "I never said it was a bad thing, I said I wasn't doing it TWO POSTS INTO THE GAME" comes across as being overdefensive. Perhaps my personality is just a bad mesh for you folk. I don't think this issue is likely to improve.

How is telling you that I'm doing my best and I don't appreciate being treated as though I'm nutty an appeal to emotion? I'm just stating a fact. Trust me, if you think I'm emotional now, you'll never ever ever ever think I'm not being emotional.

Do I usually get "this anxious" over "two measly votes" on me? No. I'm not anxious over votes. I'm anxious over being treated like I'm irrational. It bothers me. SO SUE ME. Vote me all day I don't care. Vote me to my grave and it's still not going to be what upsets me. Being treated like I'm being irrational until I actually become irrational though, yes it bothers me a great deal. I often get treated this way (not to this degree, though) based on the fact that I do two things. I post multiple posts in a row (it's only really noticed when those posts are about me, though) and I respond to comments made to or about me. For some reason people think that it's a bad thing, and they interpret it as me being defensive when I'm honestly just addressing it because that's what you do, right? You address things that are about you? If you'd like me to provide an example of THAT then I will. But not tonight.


Please stop belittling me. My panties are not in a twist. And yes, I'll do "an investigation" if I find something I want to dig into, but please stop acting as though I'm being irrational when you are doing the exact thing you have earlier asked me to prove people are doing. I'd love to "do investigations" but the thing is two posts into the game I hadn't, and I would have been quite satisfied if it had been left at that. Should I not point out when someone says something that is incorrect? Are you saying that I should let inaccuracies lie, or when pressed over silly things let them go so as not to look emotional and defensive?

And yes, I have played newbie games but thank you for continuing to insult me and my play. I don't play many games because as you can clearly see I'm not amazing at it. I joined this game to have more experience with different types of roles. And quite frankly I'm not often treated like an emotional idiot when I speak up that something is incorrect, nor when I defend myself when I'm being attacked (do you not feel I'm being attacked?)

I'm not going to be able to not take personal attacks personally, so you can say I'm appealing to emotion all you want, and you can say I might not be cut out for mafia, or you can just treat me with respect and not pretend I'm asking to not be looked at when all I'm asking is not to be talked down to when I'm merely trying to input into the game.

The thing is, again, and again, and again, I wasn't asking questions, receiving answers, asking more questions of the same person. And I find it very very offputting that you keep saying that I did instead of actually looking back at my posts at the time. I do feel like I was singled out and I am sorry if you think I'm "playing the victim" but I agree this entire conversation is asinine. I was not upset when I was initially being told I was being ridiculous, but by now I am very upset and I honestly don't think that there is a way for me to play this game and be treated with any level of normalcy.


Obviously I thought that there was not going to be some ridiculous bullshit shitstorm over me correcting a mistake and holding to that correction. I'm very close to replacing out but I will sleep on it. I do not want to be irresponsible but I don't think that my playing at this point is going to be any bit helpful. If you think I'm being irrational then maybe I am and I shouldn't be in this game, because I don't see it getting better from here.


You can now continue gossiping over how much of a silly woman I am.

tl-dr

In all seriousness, in games on this site, you often get your posts analysed to death and then some. It doesn't matter whether you were right in the first place, anything you say can be used against you, because that's how the game is played. You say that your "panties are not in a twist", but the length of this post suggests otherwise. If you can't handle this level of scrutiny in this game without making posts like this, then I suggest you leave this game.

In short, shape up or get out.

[Scigatt]

@absta101:Sorry for not contributing. To comment on your spat with Slandaar, I thought he was making better points than you were(point #2 in post 22 was pretty bad). As for noraaa, I don't think her last two posts here are anything but a null tell, but if she is scum, I'd guess Slandaar or Starbuck as one of her partners. If you want me to make a vote, I like what Sawyer ans Slandaar(excepting the first post) have said so far, but I'm not really feeling the Shamrock case, so I'll sheep Sawyer for now.

Vote:absta101

[Scigatt]

@Scigatt

if she is scum, I'd guess Slandaar or Starbuck as one of her partners.

Why Slandaar?

If I'm not mistaken, the whole thing started when Sawyer and MontyWhittaker said that noraa was investigating Slandaar. Maybe she wouldn't wanted to have implicated him.

[Scigatt]

Re-reading this post:

Noraa has became an easy target for scum. I'll have to look at the two voting her but i'm sure there's at least one scum in them. Scum would definitely take advantage of her personality type.

@Noraa

There's no need to replace out. Just stick by what you feel and you'll be alright.

So you'd have her stay in this game in her current state? Where scum could take advantage of her?

Also:

@ Slandaar and Absta could you two give us something about the rest of the players and stop wrestling with each other for a moment or two?

Way to avoid my question though Slandaar.....

In Slaandar's only post between these two posts, he barely mentions absta101 and makes comments on the actions of noraaa, Shamrock, you, and MontyWhittaker. How is that avoiding the question?

@Mod:Can we get a votecount?

[Scigatt]

@Scigatt

So you'd have her stay in this game in her current state? Where scum could take advantage of her?

1. I believe scum won't take advantage of her anymore. Psychology has basically proven her town.
Ate is either genuine (town) or faked (scum). I've explained why the former is more likely.
2. If she wants to improve she's going to have to hold off on quitting.

if she is scum, I'd guess Slandaar or Starbuck as one of her partners.

This is something i'm going to remember for the future. Right now it's a null tell at best but generally I find naming scum teams like this is scummy. It sends town in directions that make little sense.
IGMEOY.

Point 1 is fair, but I was just pointing out the apparent contradiction in your statements.
Your point 2 assumes it's better for her to stay on this site if she wants to, an assumption I don't think is warranted.
If you don't like the partner speculation, that's ok. It only matters if noraaa's slot flips scum, though.

[Scigatt]

Also you know my lynch there was complete bullshit. Fucking lynch someone while they sleep and can't defend themselves. I had a decent shot at a 3P Lylo for the win...

Do me a favor and find a spot for your vote to sit and calm the fuck down.

~Elmo

So is justification for your vote or extraneous bullshit?

And even then Mt votes torn between you and Noraaa right now.

Why? What is your case on noraaa?

I want to know as well.

Another thing, Absta's defense of noraaa is inching closer and closer to white knighting.

What's wrong with white knighting? In this situation I can see how it might be warranted.

I'd guess Slandaar or Starbuck as one of her partners.

How so?

On Slandaar: See post 66, though I'm thinking now that link is pretty weak.
On you: She only really started to get agitated when you started to interrogate her. I figured maybe he would have been reacting to you attacking her as her partner.

...you know what, on review, these reads are bullshit. Please do not take at face value.

Unvote

for now. Seems like the only case on absta101 is the reaction to Slandaar's post 8, and I've done worse as town. Will wait for Purrfect Panda to respond to Starbuck's question in post 94 to vote.

@Everyone: What do you think of the possibility that noraaa was faking it?

[Scigatt]

Ok, did a quick read, and here's a couple quick thoughts:
1) Maybe it's just been a while since I've played a game, but man, that RVS escalated to analyzing pointless dribble FAST.
2) I'm not a fan of the case against Panda.
3) I don't like noraaa's play. I could barely get through her #60. I'm not big into big wordy emotional posts that don't say anything, and despite having 10+ posts, she's done practically no scumhunting, just pointless emotional defenses. While perhaps the irreverent rambling of an easily offended townie, I find her complete lack of scumhunting worthy enough for my vote.
VOTE: noraaa

@Noraaa: Who do you think is scum right now, and why?

1.What's wrong with it? It looks like normal, productive post-RVS talk to me.
2.How is the case flawed?
3.Could you actually argue against absta101's assertion that it's a town tell?(post 61) I personally think it's a null tell, people can get out of sorts for all kinds of reasons, and I think it's more indicative of out-of-game considerations than anything. Why do you think it indicates scumminess?

This is the Rach head here. Elmo is playing very consistently for Elmo and well every game someone thinks he is scum for it. Noraa is right I had V/LA and then ended it too early because all heck broke loose just as I got back. However in this case, it was I wanted to touch base with Elmo which I had not been able to do before my first couple of posts. First time for me as a hydra.

I will read walls though, and will see what is up with Noraa's walls. Also will find the question Starbuck asked.

Please tell him to lay off the extraneous bullshit.

@Natalie:Hi

[Scigatt]

Yeah, that seemed to be the only case... and it's the same one you voted him for. Though you made no indication that you think that case no longer holds up, so why unvote now when you've "done worse as town"? If you've done worse as town (implying it's not a big deal), why did you vote him for it earlier and continue to push the issue? It just seems like you're leaving Abstas wagon after it's lost steam and you're getting ready to hop onto the one that's picking up speed.

I initially voted for him as part of sheeping your vote. There were things that I later objected to, but the way he handled them didn't indicate scumminess to me. By the time I realized that the post 8 reaction was the only thing scummy, the rest of his posts made it look like it was probably an honest mistake. If I wanted to get on an active wagon, I could have said I was still sheeping you and just hopped on. The reason I merely unvoted was that I didn't want to do that, but see the reactions of others to the wagon. I thought Shamrock's jump onto the Purrfect Panda wagon was suspicious, and I'm getting a bad gut feeling on kyle99. I'm willing to give Purrfect Panda the benefit of the doubt, given post 104. I you want me to cast a vote, I'll do so, otherwise I'll stick to what I said earlier.

[Scigatt]

I prodded MontyWhittaker and friday-13th.

Will just create a brand new VC on the next page, free of errors. (Hopefully. I'll really check well)

One of the wonderful privileges of being a mod in a game is that you can edit your mistakes out.

Scigatt

What's wrong with white knighting? In this situation I can see how it might be warranted.

There's a difference between defending someone and white knighting. noraaa got herself into the situation that she was in, had she just simply replied to the questions (because I was trying to figure out her way of thinking) rather than flip out on everyone, she wouldn't need someone to "white knight" her. It very much feels to me like he's using that to buddy up to her.

Given my initial gut feeling about him when I began the game and started reading. I'm not trusting him a bit.

I'd say what absta101 did was warranted, considering the fact that one of his town reads was being attacked and she was under emotional duress, a fact which you seem to want to downplay at every turn. Generally, if your town read is in that situation, you should defend/white knight them.

As for asking for it to be dropped.. I just was sick of clogging up the game with something

It wasn't clogging up the game (in my eyes). We had a chance to learn more about you and you just cut that off. When I see something like that, it's either someone who is nervous scum or genuine town.

Learn what, why she broke down at that point? She was definitely not in a state which would allow her to coherently answer questions.

I pretty much agree with absta101's case on Starbuck. However, as I'm not voting for anyone...

Vote:Starbuck

[Scigatt]

Just a quick response to one post, will answer other questions later.

I'm not sure if you noticed but once she did calm down and took some time away, she did answer what I asked.

Yes, but th point you were attacking her for was cutting off discussion when under emotional duress.

[Scigatt]

I'm sticking with my vote for Noraaa right now. Scum can be just as emotional as town, if not more.

Is that all, or do you actually have a case on her?

@Noraaa: This is not, nor should it be, an emotional game. Please remember that.

In my eyes, big emotional appeals make you look so scummy, it's not even funny. However, time will tell.

Get you eyes checked, then. People can break down whether they happen to be scum or town. If you are playing to win as town, you have to work with it without simply throwing up your hands and calling emotions scummy.

Sigh...why is everyone calling noraa town? I don't really understand what she is mad about (people nitpicking, belittling, using the word investigation?) but that can happen to scum too, unless I am misunderstanding what she is upset about. Don't let her AtE fool you into thinking she's bona fide town.

You are right that it definitely does not exonerate her or make her town. Walls of emotion can definitely come from scum, but I do not think that walls of emotion themselves are scummy. Anti-town, absolutely, but scummy? They are not a tell in either direction, from my view; I have played with far too many people who have exactly this reaction to coming under pressure regardless of alignment.

If you have an explanation for why you consider walls of emotion to be scummy, I'd be interested to hear it. (Actually, I'd be interested in hearing this from anyone, if only because I've never heard a good reason for it.)

I also agree that noraaa's lack of interest in scumhunting is highly detrimental to the town. If she does not shape up we will probably have to lynch her eventually anyway.

I'd like to reiterate this. I'd say at least her last two posts should be considered as scumhunting attempts, and there are already things relevant to the game to mull over in those posts.

@Scigatt: Why is my vote for Panda suspicious?

It seemed oddly timed and fairly sparsely justified to me.

@Scigatt
Probably nothing. It's just been a while since I've played a game, forgot how easily it is to set something off in the RVS.

The case against Panda is flawed simply because it's weak. I don't see anything substantionlly wrong with her play so far. I'm not going to spend time defending someone else, but my opinion is that she's town. Feel free to try to convince me otherwise.

As for noraaa, you expect me to dismiss her because she's a "silly woman"? A lack of scumhunting and an excessive use of AtE could, I suppose, be an example of an overemotional inexperienced townie. But her play right now is anti-town at best, and scummy at worst. If a couple votes motivates her to play the game, then everyone wins.

Is it scummy merely because of the AtE's? If she was genuine about her emotions all the way, I can't see how that's a tell at all. As for Purrfect Panda, I did say I was giving them the benefit of the doubt.

More to come later.

[Scigatt]

Just a quick response to one post, will answer other questions later.

I'm not sure if you noticed but once she did calm down and took some time away, she did answer what I asked.

Yes, but th point you were attacking her for was cutting off discussion when under emotional duress.

As far as I knew, she was flipping out about the game in general and I was not the only one under the same assumption. Also, I was not attacking her, I was asking her questions to figure out why she was feeling that way.

It wasn't known that she was under emotional duress until she brought it up after the fact. She didn't bring up the outside contributing factors until Post 103:

Okay. I'd like to apologize for all that before, it started off innocently enough but by the end I was definitely out of sorts. It's from a combination of outside factors and I'm working on it. So with mod permission I took a mental v/la from this game for about two days, and I am back hopefully to turn things around.

You could definitely infer that it was something like emotional duress from the posts before 103, also while I do grant that you weren't exactly attacking her, I did also question the usefulness of those questions.

noraaa also blatantly said that she felt that the discussion was "clogging up the game" even after stating what happened emotionally. So basically she wants us to drop all discussion about her, which is not going to happen. Now, your push of "you were attacking her while she was under emotional duress" is very weak becaus,e again, I was not attacking her but simply stating what happened. Conversation WAS cut off, but then she did make up for it in that same post when she answered my questions.

noraaa, if you did have something happen outside the game, you have my empathy. On the other side, this could be an elaborate farce to get focus moved off of noraaa, especially with how much Scigatt and absta are coming to her defense and the fact that both are voting me for very weak reasons.

She said it

was

clogging up the game on post 103, the post she came back on. Past tense means was clearly talking about discussion before she left and came back. I can't see where she closes off the possibility of future discussion in 103 or after. I'm not sure I'd disagree with her on that pre-103 discussion either.

Also, absta101 has never voted for you in this game. At all.

@Scigatt: In addition to the question I asked previously about your reaction to my Panda vote, could you explain why you are voting Starbuck? You said you agree with absta's arguments, but before you even voted, Starbuck countered his arguments with a defense that was (I thought) quite solid, and made absta's case look quite weak. What did you find inadequate about Starbuck's defense?

I'd probably just be reiterating absta101's post 153 if I tried to explain, so go look at that.

I initially voted for him as part of sheeping your vote. There were things that I later objected to, but the way he handled them didn't indicate scumminess to me. By the time I realized that the post 8 reaction was the only thing scummy, the rest of his posts made it look like it was probably an honest mistake.

Even when he finally explained his reasoning in post 73, it still took you a couple posts (without even taking note of 73) before unvoting. Just seems a little weird you wouldn't unvote right after he stated his reasons, rather than waiting like you did. Other than 73, I see no post that indicated his reason were valid (at least not ones you responded to). You voted him, questioned him on other things, then unvote him with a vague reason like "well that was the only case on him" like that makes it less scummy.

It was pretty much right when I was typing up post 95 that I realized that. Remember that my original vote on him was basically sheeping you, partly because I liked the cases you were making at the time, which includes that reaction to post 8 thing.

[Scigatt]

@Shamrock:
I'll respond to the stuff you said on posts not already called out by Sawyer.

On post 119:(in corresponding order to the mini-quotes.)
-When I made that vote, I had more confidence in my town reads than my scum reads.
-Note what I said I didn't find suspicious was his

handling

of my objections in post 70 i.e. things he said in response to and

after

post 70. I obviously couldn't have had any opinions on how he handled post 70 when I was writing it, could I?
-On the Starbuck 'wagon', I always made a note of which posts of absta101's I was agreeing with. I also didn't follow technically follow his vote. In fact, I had a divergent viewpoint with him on Purrfect Panda.
-Note the use of the word 'merely', as in, 'I did this, but I might have done more'. For example, Sawyer, who, three posts prior to mine(post 92), not only unvotes absta101, but votes for Purrfect Panda. That wagon, which increased in size by 2 votes over 4 posts (89-92), was definitely one to look out for.
-I'll give you that it was useless, but this also shows I was suspicious of Starbuck prior to absta101's case on him. The vote was not merely on the sexiest nascent bandwagon.

On 125:I was already suspicious of Starbuck before absta's case on 120. Like I said, I agreed with that post, and I felt it would have been redundant to restate the case.

On 156:I was going to to respond with reasoning of this on my own but absta101 already happened to have covered my reasoning in post 153. I didn't think it was necessary to state what had already been said.

In short, shape up or get out.

That's a little harsh. But I guess she took your advice, huh?

Maybe it was, but I didn't want her to be merely welcomed back into this game only for it to to happen again, here or in another game. If she can't come to tolerate and enjoy the type of scrutiny that comes with playing mafia, then she shouldn't play here. I had wanted to avoid the scenario where she stays on the site and plays games, but is miserable playing them, which would be bad for her and the other players in her games.

[Scigatt]

Welcome to the game, Brandi.

@Shamrock - You aren't the only one.


@Scigatt - You say that you were suspicious of me before absta's 120, given your Post 63, but this was your reply to me when I asked about your suspicion:

Scigatt wrote:
I'd guess Slandaar or Starbuck as one of her partners.

How so?
On Slandaar: See post 66, though I'm thinking now that link is pretty weak.
On you: She only really started to get agitated when you started to interrogate her. I figured maybe he would have been reacting to you attacking her as her partner.

...you know what, on review, these reads are bullshit. Please do not take at face value.

Let me requote what I said:


So you said right here in Post 95, that your read was bullshit, but you were suspecting me all along with no case of your own?

Okay, to be honest, I misread read Shamrock and read you name there instead, and I was thinking of Shamrock's jump onto the Purrfect Panda wagon when posting 119. So you could accuse me of jumping on the newest wagon, but that's it.

[Scigatt]

@Shamrock:In response to you reaction to my rebuttal, I cannot really debate what happened, but I can debate the interpretation of those facts. I was just showing you interpretation of those facts had in places been mistaken.

As for my actions, the reason I've been slow on the uptake and playing sloppily was that I've been feeling somewhat physically unwell for the past little while(see Song Contest 54 in GD, post 46). I thought I could play well enough through it, but recent analysis shows otherwise. I'm gonna try to get some more rest. I've fulfilled my Song Contest obligations, and I have one other game ongoing, but it's in lylo and shouldn't last too long anyways.

Mod:I'd like to request a replacement.

Unvote