Mini 1782 Game Over
-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 13, RadiantCowbells wrote:can we policy lynch kaintepes?
Well, clearly we CAN, the question is whether we SHOULD. Or whether it'd just be fun to do for the lulz I guess-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 19, Lowell wrote:In post 15, mhsmith0 wrote:In post 13, RadiantCowbells wrote:can we policy lynch kaintepes?
Well, clearly we CAN, the question is whether we SHOULD. Or whether it'd just be fun to do for the lulz I guess
Thanks, coach.pre-vote smith
Come, sheeple.
Guess it's to... roll the dice-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 24, a plain farmer wrote:No, RC, Jake is obvtown.
In post 21, mhsmith0 wrote:Guess it's to... roll the dice
Yet another reason why this needs pre-rope.
That doesn't count!
~Ircher
Lowell's avatar is dice. Then again if I have to explain the joke there is no joke . Also should have been "guess it's time to..."-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 41, a plain farmer wrote:Only to the extent that shaddowez was absolutely going to the mat for his bud, smith.
In post 28, shaddowez wrote:In post 27, mhsmith0 wrote:Lowell's avatar is dice. Then again if I have to explain the joke there is no joke . Also should have been "guess it's time to..."
The missing word threw me off for a minute, but I really hope I wasn't the only one that actually got it.
??? do you consider that "going to the mat"?-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 46, Frozen Angel wrote:APS is just branching around the bushes
he basically called half of the playerlist scum right now ...
Not sure APS is scum just yet. May just be weird. I suppose there's a meta read worth digging into there, but I'm not going to bother tonight. Maybe sometime over the weekend.-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 79, mhsmith0 wrote:@APF: Absolutly. Also, RC is obv scum for reasons too secret for me to publicly explain.
Apf, nos, clumsy: is there a reason why you thought this post was serious?-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 130, Frozen Angel wrote:In post 128, mhsmith0 wrote:In post 79, mhsmith0 wrote:@APF: Absolutly. Also, RC is obv scum for reasons too secret for me to publicly explain.
Apf, nos, clumsy: is there a reason why you thought this post was serious?
why you posted it?
Why wouldn't i?-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
Post was sarcastic. I thought it was obvious sarcasm. As far as why I'd post a sarcastic response instead of just "no I don't see the town slip and no I don't see the cause for an early scum read of rc (implied by 75)", basically I felt like it. I mean, I really did think it was obvious sarcasm.
The whole "obv scum but the reason is a secret" was basically obvious bullshit (with a bit of a semi serious complaint of people reading without saying why). I kind of figured the flagrant bullshit in the second part would make it clear the first part was non serious as well, i.e. I did NOT see what he was talking about.
I guess I was kind of hoping someone would be lazy about reading it and say something dumb (and apf's unvote may qualify)... But basically everyone who engaged with it apparently took it as serious. Which makes me think I was a lot less obvious about it than I thought.
Long story short, if my sarcasm is that non obvious, I'll slap a on it or something if/when I use it again.Last edited by Ircher on Mon Apr 18, 2016 3:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 127, Lowell wrote:Alsofos smith. oof, don't think i've forgotten this disasterpiece.. Also as soon as someone says the phrase "reaction test" I want to dayvig them anyway. so this will work out fine. Less talk, more reckless lynching, please. come, sheeple, and vote.he's an asskisser this game and defender of the meek, plain and simple, and I don't like it
Citations please.
Ps why do you have maverick as town?-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
Fwiw, I tend to be on the slow side in voting. I dislike throwing my vote around aggressively. I don't have a problem with those who do, but that's not my style. I obviously haven't been impressed with you so far, but I'm not at the point where i think it's vote worthy. I'd rather observe, ask questions, and develop a more informed opinion, of both you and others. Especially since I've never played with you before and don't know your meta.
I'd also note that 139 in particular was an answer to roshars 137. I don't see how that was setting anything up.Last edited by Ircher on Mon Apr 18, 2016 4:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
Nos provides "Original Content" as requested by Maverick. As with APF's vote, an explanation would be nice.-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 347, Jake from State Farm wrote:I amuse you? I make you laugh?
Do you happen to have an estimate for when you're going to start playing? Or will we be getting another 30 or so posts that are variations of "sorry guys it's just too early for me to be playing serious"? At least our other high-volume posters are mixing in content with the silliness. Will this help motivate you to start playing?
VOTE: Jake from state farm
More seriously, this is a LOT of posts to basically not be providing any actual content. If it's a scum plan to just look busy, it's a bad one because of how obviously ineffective it is, but sometimes scum simply don't have anything to say so they continue to speak without saying anything.
Other early reads:
Maverick: seems to be taking the game seriously. Asks questions of wide variety of posters, puts his opinions down on the thread, seems to be genuinely interested in sorting people. Obviously scum can fake this, but it doesn't feel fake to me. Town lean.
FA: Obviously a decent number of the posts were just random crap, but there was enough substance in here that I'm feeling good about her right now. Seems genuinely curious about sorting people, and consistently engages in a variety of discussions with a goal of pushing or sorting people. Town lean.
APF: I'm having a hard time sorting him because I can't tell when he's being serious and when he's just BS'ing / reaction testing / lazy (the discussion about 29 seems misguided in that regard because it felt like intentional BS to me). It feels like he's been more serious lately. I still think his reasoning in his vote for me was weak (and the vote / unvote / revote was odd, especially unvoting me because I "agreed" with his post on RC), but early votes tend to be on the weak side unless you've got really dumb scum or something. Null for now but it'd be nice to see a bit more seriousness so that I can actually read him.
Roshar: I'd agree that a decent number of her posts were more theory/mechanics than substance, but I'm not sure that this really stands out in this board (so far). I'm not going to vote her just because her theory stands at odds with people on the board. There's also a level of aggression I'm seeing lately that seems towny. Overall null, with maybe a really small town lean, and I'll +1 on Maverick liking her lately.
RC: I really don't have a sense of him right now. The temper flare-up around 164 was odd, but I'm not sure it's AI. Ditto all the talk about his meta.
Nos: Maverick was correct to point out the lack of content in her posts. Naked voting me as a "ok here now I'm providing content" was really weird. Possibly scummy but seems as likely to just be lazy or reactive than necessarily scummy. Lean scum but largely TBD depending on her content.
Clumsy/FL/Kain/Lowell: meh.-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 352, Nosferatu wrote:I'd love to see your explanation on why not posting walls at day start is scum indicative.
Odd way of reading my post. There's a happy medium between naked voting as a response to a prompt to make content, and posting a large wall.-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 357, Nosferatu wrote:In post 355, mhsmith0 wrote:In post 352, Nosferatu wrote:I'd love to see your explanation on why not posting walls at day start is scum indicative.
Odd way of reading my post. There's a happy medium between naked voting as a response to a prompt to make content, and posting a large wall.
I wasn't talking about me
Ah, sorry. I read your post as a response to my scum lean on you. Out of curiosity, who were you talking to?-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 358, Maverick1102 wrote:I hate that my read has changed so quickly, but I quite like the logic in that from Roshar. UNVOTE: APF
VOTE: Clumsy
I suppose... "there might be something there"-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 362, Nosferatu wrote:Didn't know that was an ordered readlist, but w/e, it was to you, just not on the topic of me. I was talking about jake, who did the exact thing he said he was going to do once the game started.
There's a bit of a disconnect here. I wasn't asking for a wall, I was asking for content and commenting on the disturbingly high number of posts without content. Content doens't need to be a wall, it can be short, it can be as simple as a relevant question.-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 365, Lowell wrote:rosh is fine now. done with him.
smith's 351 looks like a try-hard filler post after he got called out for lurking. what i can do in one charismatic and awesome sentence he takes a text-wall to do. except he still does nothing.
VOTE: smith
Which of these sentences was the "charismatic and awesome" one? And will you ever get around to providing those citations I asked for in 140? Or how your "gut" had Maverick as town so quickly?-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 368, Nosferatu wrote:I was exaggerating when I said wall. I just found it odd that you would vote someone because they didn't leap out of the gate with scumhunting, when they clearly previously stated that they didn't find the pre-game to have proper reactions. It just seems like gunning for easy pickings to me.
The lack of scum-hunting right off the bat didn't bother me so much as the bloated number of "I'm not trying, here's why I'm not trying" posts. It's a bit of a vote whip, I'll admit, but right now I think he NEEDS that whip. If he impresses me with his content, I'll unvote.
PS While we're talking about vote reasons, why did you vote me? Is it fair for me to suspect that you did it as a response to maverick's prompt to start doing stuff? Or was there a more tangible reason involved?-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
@Mav: was that at me or Nos? I think me, so I'll answer: I think Jake's behavior is plausibly scummy, but it's as much a vote whip as anything else. I'm certainly not going to be driving his lynch aggressively at this stage. 30+ posts is a lot of posts without content, but if he starts doing better I'll unvote.-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 376, Jake from State Farm wrote:I'm not here to impress you. I have no desire to impress you and your vote on me isn't going to make me change how I play. You want to policy lynch me for not playing to your standards go right ahead.
I actually like this response.-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
@Nos: Not sure why you thought the sarcasm was stupid, but since almost no one saw as sarcasm at the time it you're at least not alone.
Fair enough wrt jake, if it was a serious attempt to get him lynched, I'd agree. I'm not sure why you'd think it was though. Given that it was explicitly accompanied by "Will this help motivate you to start playing?" it wasn't exactly "hey everyone let's aggressively lynch the scum".
@mav: the scum motivation would be active lurking. I don't think he did a good job of it if it was a scum plan, but there's also an element of shrinking expectations of his play by being this consistently unhelpful, which could put him under fire, but also could just be a way to play the "scum wouldn't be this blatant" game. If he actually starts doing something, and I read it as non-scummy, I'll unvote. But in a game where I'm not really scum-reading any of the active participants, the active lurker stands out, at least for now.-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
PS @Nos: I didn't like that you seemingly voted me as a reaction to Maverick's "start providing content" bit, but it was plausible that you had a reason that you just hadn't bothered sharing. I'm not going to seriously scum read something for that. Now, if you kept stone-walling, or had a completely ridiculous reason, things might change. But I didn't find your reason to be totally unreasonable (though I did think it a bit weak).-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
PPS in case anyone is unfamiliar with the term, vote whipping is defined (on my other site, playdip) as: "The behaviour of voting for a player to encourage them to answer a question, participate, or otherwise engage in debate." Which is basically what my vote was, with a plausible scum explanation of his behavior so far attached.-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 385, Nosferatu wrote:In post 383, mhsmith0 wrote:@Nos: Not sure why you thought the sarcasm was stupid, but since almost no one saw as sarcasm at the time it you're at least not alone.
no, I didn't get the sarcasm, it's that you made a shitty post and then said "oh it was asrcasm gaiz I tohught dat was obvios"
*shrugs* I still feel like the post
In post 79, mhsmith0 wrote:@APF: Absolutly. Also, RC is obv scum for reasons too secret for me to publicly explain.
is obvious sarcasm. Like, it being a serious post is totally non-sensical. You and Clumsy called me out on that, apparently without stopping to think what I might have meant. And APF unvoted me because he apparently read the first word and ignored the rest of the post. But that's enough people reacting to it as serious to make me think I did a crappy job of making the sarcasm clear.-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 387, Maverick1102 wrote:I think the point of active lurking is to coast without drawing attention to yourself. Jake is doing plenty of that.
Hmm, I suppose you may be right.
UNVOTE: Jake
I still scum lean him, but it's certainly not flagrant. I'm still irritated at his active non-participation, but it's not like I want to drive his lynch. I still do want to see something out of his slot though.-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 389, Nosferatu wrote:the tone of your post is completely static and there's no reason it could be interpreted as sarcasm. This is why we have and Kappa and :^) and other such emoticons to denote sarcasm properly.
So "RC is obv scum for reasons too secret for me to publicly explain" reads as not just serious but "no reason it could be interpreted as sarcasm" to you? Due to tone alone? Ignoring the obvious BS nature of it? Really?-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 392, Nosferatu wrote:In post 387, Maverick1102 wrote:I think the point of active lurking is to coast without drawing attention to yourself. Jake is doing plenty of that.
Well you could say that if he were actually active lurking. He specifically stated he wasn't going to be considering the pre-game, and followed through. An active lurker wouldn't do that imo.
pedit: so apparently smith is interpreting this post as saying jake is drawing attention to himself, andsince we have differing interpretations, it's only right to get on my knees and grovel for mav to pick the correct interpretation
Please clarify the bolded part. When have I said anything along those lines? Are you implying that I am demanding that he fall in line with my interpretation? Are you trying to make some other point?
In post 392, Nosferatu wrote:
mhsmith0 wrote:In post 389, Nosferatu wrote:the tone of your post is completely static and there's no reason it could be interpreted as sarcasm. This is why we have and Kappa and :^) and other such emoticons to denote sarcasm properly.
So "RC is obv scum for reasons too secret for me to publicly explain" reads as not just serious but "no reason it could be interpreted as sarcasm" to you? Due to tone alone? Ignoring the obvious BS nature of it? Really?
just because it's stupid doesn't make it sarcastic. I don't know you. You could actually be that dumb.
That's quite a bit different than "there's no reason it could be interpreted as sarcasm". So your interpretation is... what? That I'm an idiot and made an incredibly stupid and non-sensical post, and just randomly back-pedalled into the sarcasm excuse? Or that I intentionally said something dumb, as part of some strange scum plan? I'm struggling to see how this all fits together in your mind, especially given your aggressive statement that sarcasm simply wasn't a reasonable explanation. I'd really like some more insight from you as to what you're thinking here.
I'd especially like some evidence that you put thought into this, because I'm starting to wonder if you just jumped right into the easy scum explanation, and if so, I want to know why.-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 394, Nosferatu wrote:I didn't realize you were being sarcastic. Let's just get this out of the way, I'm not thinking you're scum here because of this post. I realize now that you thought it was sarcasm. I said that the initial reason was because I remember how you explained this post as sarcasm, and that it didn't make sense to me. I'm not voting you know because of that. If it was just that, I would've unvoted much before.
So the other reasons are ___?
And how many of them applied at the time of your vote?
In post 394, Nosferatu wrote:no, I was of the mind what when mav said "I think the point of active lurking is to coast without drawing attention to yourself. Jake is doing plenty of that."
I interpreted that when he said "Jake is doing plenty of that." he was saying jake was active lurking.
Since you unvoted, I'm assuming you interpreted mav as saying jake was drawing attention to himself, thereby making him not active lurking.
1) What did that have to do with the whole "get on my knees and grovel" bit?
2) My unvote was because I decided that it was at least a reasonable interpretation, and because I decided that my vote was weak and didn't deserve to just sit there. Basically as I described in 390. I'd also note that just because Jake DID draw some attention to himself doesn't mean that he INTENDED to do so. But it's a pretty mediocre case right now, and I shouldn't have voted it, even as a vote whip.-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 398, Nosferatu wrote:In post 379, Nosferatu wrote:
I also think you're gunning for low-hanging fruit with jake, which is why I haven't moved it.
you've backed down on jake now tho so I'll probably move it to the next person that pings me
So basically you're vote parking on me until someone else pings your radar? I don't really approve of that behavior.
PS In your mind, how fair would it be for me to think that you were "gunning for low-hanging fruit" with me and the sarcasm bit with your original vote?-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 394, Nosferatu wrote:I'm not voting you know because of that. If it was just that, I would've unvoted much before.
One other thing: this post came 24 minutes after I unvoted, and you're now saying that my unvote more or less removed your vote motivation (that's how I read 398 anyway). When you made the statement I just quoted above, did you realize that I had unvoted? Is this a case where you'd missed what I did above and were still thinking my vote was on Jake, or was there in fact something else driving your motivation to stay on me?-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 427, Jake from State Farm wrote:Some people may write it off as a grudge vote which would be a valid assumption as well, but imo he has no useful skills that is worthy keeping around if he is town and if he is scum you definitely want him gone ASAP. This is the guy who double bussed his mafia partners hard and convinced town to lynch a gunsmith clear (or maybe it was a cop) to win the game as scum. he is very manipulative and impossible to read as either alignment. He should absolutely be the lynch today and until I see posts from other people that make me think they may be a better lynch. I like my vote where it is at. I don't really think anything said pre-game is going to change my mind but if you disagree please feel free to provide me links or quotes of posts I should consider.
I guess you'll have to speak for yourself, but I'd LOVE it if scum!RC decided to double-bus his buddies here. Especially if he did it early. Is there anything at all here other than what amounts to a policy lynch of a player you don't like?
In post 460, Jake from State Farm wrote:In post 458, Nosferatu wrote:am I wrong?
you are all wrong.
Once the game started my vote was going to be on RC no matter what happened because that was who I was going to use my "rvs" vote on, although it wasn't going to be for a random reason but for a very specific reason.
My vote is staying on him however because the posts that i did happen to read of his make me think he is scum.
Anything in particular jump out at you on this front? Telling us what posts you think are scummy, and why you think they're scummy, is more helpful than the blanket statement. You basically started by advocating a policy lynch of RC, but are now transitioning to saying it's a substantive read, but are refusing to say where your substance comes from.
PS Between 427 (where you seem to represent it as a policy lynch) and 460 (where you explicitly represent it as substantive), RC's only post was:
In post 438, RadiantCowbells wrote:VOTE: JFSF
Not dealing with someone with that attitude, regardless of alignment.
Was that the post that pinged you? Or did you re-read earlier posts to find things that jumped out at you as being scummy?
In post 446, Jake from State Farm wrote:In post 437, shaddowez wrote:Are you seriously asking for people to not provide information to the rest of us? If you don't like them, you can decide not to read them, but getting people's views and reasons is pretty much the only way to convince the rest of the game of your argument.
I think you kind of misinterpreted me. I'm not asking people to not provide information but I am asking them to not provide it in the format of a reads list. People can relay their thoughts on others without making a reads list. List reads give scum info about who they should NK and who they should leave alive to let town mislynch. If you find people scummy you can relay that info without a list read. If you find people town, good for you. Don't share that info unless somebody asks you (which imo nobody should do). No need to share who you think is town, that's not the point of the game.
Scum are going to NK for whatever reasons they want. According to you, the down side of providing town reads is that scum can make slightly more informed reads (as opposed to the much more informed reads created by PR hunting). OTOH, the upside of providing town reads is that it gets people to provide more reasoning in thread, giving scum more chances to get caught BS'ing, and it makes life difficult for scum to have to make scum cases on people they were town reading earlier.
Frankly, your theory here seems to be really weird. Is this a theory that you typically advocate as town? Can you point me to an earlier game of yours where you've made similar statements?
In post 459, Roshar wrote:What do you mean by conclusive? As in she's not explicity stating her views, or something else? I'm not sure how anything can be seen as conclusive on D1 with no flips or night actions, unless I'm misunderstanding
As in you're only pointing at things you find odd but never coming to a conclusion about how this makes you feel towards RC.
The bolded pings me bad...I'm going to do an ISO dive on Nos, but right now she's probably my strongest scum read.
Yeah, same post gave me bad vibes as well. The thought process of, "if I wanted to pick the easiest wagon, I'd have gone for x" but look, "I went for y instead" as if that exonerated you, comes from scum. And the I'd BS a reason against roshar part.
Yeah this makes me uncomfortable as well. Both me and Roshar were relatively easy targets at that stage (and, notably, Roshar had gotten some defense in thread by that point - I'm specifically thinking maverick in 339 but there might have been more), so "I picked X instead of Y" isn't super convincing.
@Nos: do you ever exhibit this kind of behavior as town? Can you point to any specific examples of this? I'll meta-dive you if I have to, but I'd rather you just point me to it at this stage.-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 465, Frozen Angel wrote:In post 463, mhsmith0 wrote:Yeah this makes me uncomfortable as well. Both me and Roshar were relatively easy targets at that stage (and, notably, Roshar had gotten some defense in thread by that point - I'm specifically thinking maverick in 339 but there might have been more), so "I picked X instead of Y" isn't super convincing.
I hate when someone call himself an easy target.
And I don't like your last post at all. your push on Jake seems ill
1) fair enough on easy target point.
2) what looks off wrt my jake push? I'm trying to get him to actually say what he's reading, and talk about what his theory is. Also, that theory looked really odd to me, so I'm trying to better understand him.-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 469, Frozen Angel wrote:I felt you don't beleive what your writing. you were just trying to repeat , put together , make a case on him and gather votes but your tone was like your trying to show its not what I'm saying like you wanna distance yourself from the push.
And when I feel something its usually true so I'm really suspicious about you right now.
For jake I'm trying to sort him. I'm finding his non transparency frustrating. I'm also kind of wondering if he's just VI tbh.-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 471, Frozen Angel wrote:Whats your initial reads on shadows and RC ?
I'm pretty null on RC. I don't feel like I've gotten anything particularly useful from him that I can use to sort him.
shaddowez: Hadn't really been a focus of mine. A lot of his content seems to be generally making relatively easy points, which I dislike, but it's early enough that doesn't sound much of an alarm to me.
That said, skimming the FA/shadow double ISO, it looks like you found 252 interesting. I think I agree with your point about his observations not having a lot of substance, but I'm not sure I agree about him trying to derail Roshar wagon (at least in that post).
What's the reason behind people (pre-)voting Roshar? I don't see anything in there I would call scummy.
Is a pretty weak attempt to derail a wagon. It's just as plausibly a request for info/clarification. Now, your point about everyone having already explained things is fair, but seemingly lazy reading this early isn't something I'm going to vote someone for.
I think 259 is kind of dumb (I don't think it's weird that a wagon would pick up momentum, or that it necessarily implies scum drivers).
But 262... yeah that one sucks. I don't actually mind the "chainsawy" parts (per RC's 264), but I dislike the "look over there" bit wrt Maverick.
I also don't think his push/vote on Nos is particularly troublesome, though the low content is certainly a point that's been brought up before (see 343, possibly others ). I'm actually a bit curious why the Nos ISO dive leads to a town read of Jake, though.shaddowez, could you clarify that point?
Overall I'd say mainly null on this slot, maybe a minor scum read from the "look over there" bit. Certainly nothing I'd want to vote him for.
/ninjad by a few, will respond to those-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 472, Jake from State Farm wrote:No that wasn't the post that pinged me, it wasn't one post that pinged me btw. No I did not re-read anything. I think you need to work on your reading comprehension also because I covered this already here
I don't see at all where you had covered this before I asked about it. You went from suggesting it was essentially a policy lynch or maybe RVS (let's lynch RC because "he has no useful skills that is worthy keeping around if he is town and if he is scum you definitely want him gone ASAP") to suggesting it was a legitimate read based on data from this game in particular, in a span of time where RC made precisely one post, and you never specified what you found suspicious. Asking what changed is legitimate.
In post 474, Jake from State Farm wrote:You are trying to make yourself useful by asking questions that already have been answered or that don't really matter.
Which questions were already answered? And which questions don't matter, and why?
In post 478, Jake from State Farm wrote:wondering why mhsmith didn't offer to meta dive me?
Because it's a super easy question for you to answer yourself without a meta dive. Either you represent this position in other games, or you don't. Why would I need/want to meta dive you for that?
In post 474, Jake from State Farm wrote:now tell me how my stance on list reads help you figure out my alignment? I'll go ahead and answer that for you actually because the answer is is blatantly obvious. THEY DON'T.
Because if it's a position you don't normally advocate, it would look suspicious and I'd want to know why. I found your theory odd, and was trying to get a sense of if you honestly believed it. That's me actually trying to figure you out.-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 477, Nosferatu wrote:In post 463, mhsmith0 wrote:
@Nos: do you ever exhibit this kind of behavior as town? Can you point to any specific examples of this? I'll meta-dive you if I have to, but I'd rather you just point me to it at this stage.
give me a specific behviour and I'll give you a game.
As town, do you tend to open scum-hunting by looking at more popular targets already under suspicion? And do you tend to give the "well if I was scum I'd have done X instead of Y" type defense?-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 482, Jake from State Farm wrote:Mh, why did you decide to change your opinion on votes/voting?
Because I was irritated at you and what seemed like an active choice you were making not to participate.-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 485, Jake from State Farm wrote:So you sacrifice your personal play style to vote me to motivate me to play better cause I annoy you?
Btw this makes me think you think I'm town. If I were scum, or you thought I was scum, My play couldn't be annoying you. It would be pinging your scum dar and you would be calling me scum.
So mh thinks/knows I'm town. That was productive.
How does that make sense? I find dealing with people who refuse to allow themselves to be read annoying. It's anti-town (and IMO obnoxious) behavior, but it can come from either alignment (which is part of what makes it so annoying). I want to be able to read you, and to do this at any kind of early stage, I need to actually know what you're thinking (or see enough from you that I can make a reasonable guess as to what you're thinking).
PS You seem to discount the idea that I could find this annoying if I was town and you scum. I'm not really sure why. As town, I want to be able to gain an informed opinion of you rather than just having your obnoxious behavior pinging my scum-dar. I want to have strong reason to correctly read you, rather than making a limited gut read based on a specific set of anti-town behaviors.
Or to put it another way: as town, I want to solve the mystery that the game is presenting. Behavior that makes this task more difficult makes the game more unpleasant to play.
PPS The full paragraph from your quote was (underlined was your exceprt):
4. I don't need to have read the past 15 pages to place a serious vote. I placed a serious vote and didn't read the past 15 pages so I kind of just proved its possible.Side note, just cause I didn't read every single post during pre-game doesn't mean I didn't read stuff.I was obviously posting/responding to people during pregame which means I had to read stuff during pregame.
How does THAT make it clear that you were scum-reading RC specifically due to posts taht he made, much less that it was because his posts read as "fake"? It reads far more like a generic "oh yeah I read some stuff but not all of it" than anything specifically pointing to RC's posting as the basis for a scum read, or that you'd specifically been paying attention to his posts. Especially given
3. Why does it become pointless? Why can't I place a serious vote and not have read pre-game? That's a stupid assumption to make.
which reads like your reason for voting was somethign OTHER THAN what was actually in pre-game. Now, maybe you just meant that you didn't need to have read ALL (or maybe even most) of pre-game to have a "serious" vote, but it was by no means super clear.-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 492, Jake from State Farm wrote:Have you ever played the game of Mafia before? If yes have you ever been Mafia or SK or some sort of 3rd party?
Cause if you have you would realize how stupid this post is.
Maybe you just screwed up. Yes, it wasn't super likely, but it's hardly impossible.
In post 495, Jake from State Farm wrote:Just like this game isn't like any of the RC games I've played with him either as jfsf or secret alts. It's different from both town and scum games
This is a helpful post. You're suggesting that your read is meta (which I don't really have the ability to verify, certainly not quickly), but I'm getting more out of you as to the basis of your read, and at least building towards being able to understand you.-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 497, Jake from State Farm wrote:If you wanted clarity from me you handeled it all wrong.
Possibly. I don't really agree, but at the least I eventually got some answers.-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 501, Jake from State Farm wrote:In post 500, mhsmith0 wrote:In post 497, Jake from State Farm wrote:If you wanted clarity from me you handeled it all wrong.
Possibly. I don't really agree, but at the least I eventually got some answers.
Had you asked me direct questions about my vote to begin with instead of voting me to "motivate me to do better" you would have saved time. You would have also stayed off my radar and wouldn't have revealed yourself as scum.
Thanks I appreciate scum making it easy for me
-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
Because ___?
Also, how sure is "pretty sure"?
PS +1 on your sig
PPS As with Mav earlier, I'm fine with a short explanation at this point.-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
Wrt jake, I find myself ever more frustrated with trying to get him to open up at all. It feels like pulling teeth and it really shouldn't. I owe him a meta dive (not ASAP but def. by this weekend) to see if he's always super closed, if he often jumps in with "ok I found the scum guys" type posts representing theories he hasn't fully thought through or came down on one side and just ignored other plausible explanations. But my gut is saying that I'll probably see similar behavior from him in either alignment, and that he's just going to live perpetually in the null zone by choice, because that's where he wants to be.
It's the sort of behavior that IMO makes the game less pleasant, regardless of his alignment. And there's a post game rant that I'll probably go on about why I dislike this behavior so much. But if you want me to give you a strong alignment read on him, I can't. Maybe he'll start to open up and let him be read one way or the other. I hope he does. But I suspect he won't, and that further efforts to get much out of him are likely to be fruitless. Maybe I'll change my mind on that going forward, or maybe someone else will do a better job getting something substantive out of him. But at least right now, I don't know what to make of his alignment, and I'm not optimistic that I'll get much of a better read any time soon. Sorry for not being able to give you a better or more definitive answer, but that's where I am on him right now.-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
Spoiler: Jake Thoughts
Overall, I feel like Jake came out of the back and forth with Maverick looking a lot more decent than I was expecting. I'm not sure anything between him and FA pinged me as especially notable for AI purposes; I may re-read that later, but that's my first take. I'm actually starting to lean a little bit town on him.
Spoiler: Maverick Thoughts
I'm struggling to see what drove Maverick to basically change his interpretation of the very same set of facts that earlier caused him to town read Jake. Maverick, why did your opinion on this flip between 387 and 543? It can't be because Froot Loop convinced you that it's because anti-town behavior necessarily equals scum; she specifically notes that her Jake vote is due to something else entirely. So what else changed to make that behavior scummy in your mind?
PS I'd agree that Jake's vote on me is mediocre, but I'm not sure that it's necessarily insincere or vote parking or anything like that. He's stated why he's voting me, notably in 474, 482, 485, 503.
So
just seems off, and really reductionist. You can certainly disagree with his reasons (I do), but to suggest that he's just hand-waving a case out of nowhere solely because we've "butted heads"... no. That's not what he's saying. And while Jake is opaque, he's not THAT opaque. Town lean retracted.I can't actually see why JSF is voting for mhsmith other than he dislikes readslists and they've butted heads a little bit
Nos: I need to spend more time here. But one thing grabbed my attention:
Spoiler: Nosferatu quotes
Nos, it looks like you WERE in fact "try[ing] to argue that the sarcasm thing was scummy". Am I reading you wrong? Are you trying to make some other point than something that seems to be explicitly false?
I'll also note that you're not currently pushing me, although I do note that your vote is still on me. Do you still think I'm scum? Has someone else pinged your radar? What are your current thoughts right now?-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 673, Jake from State Farm wrote:Not sure what to make of smith's post. On the surface it looks like he actually put some effort into writing it. Being a newb player that's something im not used to seeing. Smith are you by chance an alt account?
Not an alt. I have two completed "real" games under my belt (one town, one scum, both losses, both offsite), plus a few turbos (days < 30 min).
Town: http://www.playdiplomacy.com/forum/view ... 14&t=52035
Scum: http://www.mafiauniverse.com/forums/thr ... alad-Mafia
In post 671, Nosferatu wrote:@smith you are reading wrong. And I've already mentioned who's pinging my radar right now.
You did but OTOH
In post 398, Nosferatu wrote:you've backed down on jake now tho so I'll probably move it to the next person that pings me
so I'm not sure if you're still scum reading me, if you're not serious about who you've mentioned, or what exactly you're up to.
PS Am I otherwise reading wrong? If so, please tell me how.
PPS I'm back at work and busy so likely won't be saying much else until tonight.-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 808, Jake from State Farm wrote:Why would I stop pressuring the person I want lynched?
Parroting Lowell here:
In post 796, Lowell wrote:if I were scum trying to hide right now I'd be happy
In a bit more detail:
1) You're making the thread about your personal pissing match against FA, swamping literally everything else, with no real signs of abating. And if it DOES continue indefinitely...
2) If this is in fact town v town (I'm not particularly sure atm but it could be) , it sets up almost perfectly for consecutive ML's, with one of you following the other in whatever order.
3) Even if you're in a situation where you're town and FA is scum, you're simplifying the engagement here to the point where scum don't really have to be accountable for which side they pick in the fight, or whatever their other reads or engagements are.
So it's not helpful. You've made your case. Unless there is something SPECIFIC, IMPORTANT, AND NEW to say on the subject, just stop. Let other people read what's happened so far and make their own opinions. Another few pages of back and forth shouting doesn't provide any useful information to any of us.-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
@Jake: Here's something just as helpful: spend the next day listing all the posts you think are scummy, and compile one big mega post or something on the subject. That way at least there's space for SOMETHING else to emerge in the down time.
@FA: Just ignore him. Think of it as a challenge or something.-
-
mhsmith0 Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Balancing Act
- Posts: 10830
- Joined: March 7, 2016
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
In post 828, RadiantCowbells wrote:STOP PLS FA.
Jake seriously the fuck.
Do you think the mod makes a 'stop talking to each other' post if FA isn't town?
Like the mod basically modslipped that FA is fucking town. leave her alone.
I'll literally wagon anything that isn't in my townpile atm.
I don't think the mod slipped anything AI. I think the mod slipped that this whole engagement is toxic. Regardless of individual players' alignments.