Micro 181: Everyone's being watched (Game Over)

fuzzybutternut · Post Post #75 (ISO) » Sun May 26, 2013 10:17 pm

That's one hell of a way to ask me to answer a question, guy.

I'll get around to it.

fuzzybutternut · Post Post #76 (ISO) » Sun May 26, 2013 10:18 pm

In post 29, Horus wrote:fuzzybutternut: You had been posting during RVS without random-voting, then I voted for you for not voting and then yiu random-voted. Do you see value in RVS participation? If so, then why were you abstaining until I brought it up? If not, then why did you join in at my prompting?

I had one post before my RVS. Therefore, this question is invalid.

JasonWazza · Post Post #77 (ISO) » Sun May 26, 2013 10:40 pm

Vote Count 1.3

[3] Zionite: Miss Destroyer, Malakittens, Fuzzybutternut,
[2] Fuzzybutternut: Does Bo Know, Horus,
[1] Miss Destroyer: RachMarie,
[1] Grimgroove: Zionite,
[1] Horus: Wisdom,
[1] Wisdom: Grimgroove,

Not voting:

with 9 alive it takes 5 to lynch

Deadline: (expired on 2013-06-07 15:08:42)

Grimgroove · Post Post #78 (ISO) » Sun May 26, 2013 11:52 pm

In post 75, fuzzybutternut wrote:That's one hell of a way to ask me to answer a question, guy.

Seriously? So if someone would say "Why haven't you washed your hair?", you would not take that as a hint to wash your hair? I guess I'll be communicating very straightforwardly with your from now on.

Your last answer was pretty bad. Something along these lines would have been better:

"Indeed, I had one post before my RVS. Therefore, this question is valid. Here is my answer to it: ... "

Could you fill in the dots?

Zionite · Post Post #79 (ISO) » Mon May 27, 2013 12:04 am

In post 67, Horus wrote:Hey, maybe it works, I wouldn't know - I don't try it on principle. Voting for someone and expecting them to feel "pressured" while also announcing to the thread that you aren't interested in actually lynching them seems counterintuitive to me - since the express purpose of a vote is to exact a lynch and the threat of a lynch is the only potential source of "pressure" I can see. Take that threat away and the pressure is gone.

"Hey, I'm going to park my vote on you, but don't worry: I'm not pushing a case against you and I don't want to lynch you. But... it would be really helpful if you would still panic so I can fish for reactions, please."

I've had this argument before in a recent game. My findings were that it's fine to vote for pressure and call it what it is. It may not be as effective as campaigning, but it doesn't take that much effort either and stays away from being disingenuous. I play as honestly as I can because it's easier than "pretending" to try to lynch someone when you really just want a read.

In post 69, RachMarie wrote:Zionite why are you voting someone who IIRC is on V/LA for Memorial Day Weekend?

To get a read. It worked.
UNVOTE:

In post 70, fuzzybutternut wrote:^because he's scum.

Not a fan of the mudslinging.

In post 71, Grimgroove wrote:So, I'm back. I see I'm being accused of lurking? I obviously forgot to state it here, which is my fault, but during the weekends it will always be very difficult for me to come online. I hope this is fine. I always try to make up for that in the weekdays.

Well, you were lurking. But I'm glad to see it's only on weekends.

As far as Zionite's question is concerned about Horus, two things:
Firstly: I don't see the connection between my apparent lack on opinion on Horus and the vote for me. Why are opinions on Horus so important to you, and why mine specifically?

I felt that it was the biggest event of the game so far and it was odd for you to ignore it while fixating on my vote.

Secondly: I'll humour you and answer your question though. In my eyes, Horus makes a lot of sense, his post 33 was already quite robust, but for some reason it's called "flailing" and an "overreaction", something I can't agree with. I see a rational response to some half-baked allegations. I don't mind the allegations per sé, in the beginning they will always be half-baked and you have to start somewhere, but I don't agree with how Horus was treated on page 2. His "SLOOOOWWWW"-post shows the kind of commitment I like in a player. It's a null read affiliation-wise, true, but someone who obiously want things to move forward in a reasonable pace is 1. not lynch-material on D1 because of the activity this will provide. 2. not lynch-material on D1 because active people should be easier to get a firm read on.

So you don't think explaining himself after he caught flak for his vote is scummy, just normal behavior?

@Zionite: And how was my reaction to your vote bad? It was a vote before I had even posted anything, so obviously without a real reason. How could anyone react badly to such a vote? I didn't take it seriously, so I just asked you to remove it in a simplistic manner, not ever seriously thinking that this alone would convince you. How do you see this as an overreaction?

It wasn't really an overreaction, but I expected that if you really didn't take it seriously then you'd simply ignore it. I didn't like that comments on the game state were replaced by a self-conscious fixation. Again, this was the only post of yours that I had to go off of for a read.

I think my vote on Wisdom is also still in a good place. I think it's a very defensive interpretation of 35, and I don't see any reason for this kind of defensiveness, especially from someone who obviously is very sensitive to supposed overreactions himself.

Seems fair. I'm not confident enough to follow you though.

You guys do claims at L-2 right?

Wisdom · Post Post #80 (ISO) » Mon May 27, 2013 12:05 am

Nope, at L-1, when there's intent to hammer.

Grimgroove · Post Post #81 (ISO) » Mon May 27, 2013 2:01 am

In post 71, Grimgroove wrote:So, I'm back. I see I'm being accused of lurking? I obviously forgot to state it here, which is my fault, but during the weekends it will always be very difficult for me to come online. I hope this is fine. I always try to make up for that in the weekdays.

Well, you were lurking. But I'm glad to see it's only on weekends.

As far as Zionite's question is concerned about Horus, two things:
Firstly: I don't see the connection between my apparent lack on opinion on Horus and the vote for me. Why are opinions on Horus so important to you, and why mine specifically?

I felt that it was the biggest event of the game so far and it was odd for you to ignore it while fixating on my vote.

I don't agree this actually constitued as a big event, but given the other activity in this topic so far, I guess you could call it the biggest. However, I was only popping my head in, too time-constrained to contribute anything of real value or to read the Horus-Wisdom-Zionite-discussion in depth. If I had to react to anything, I'd only think it logical to respond to any vote on me, even if the vote was only half-serious and my reaction to it as well. As it was my first and only post, I think it's quite a stretch to already start talking about "fixations". From my point of view ignoring a vote, hoping it simply passes, is scummier than anything else. Is your post 48 a fixation on someone voting for you? Saying you'll ignore something is just as much of a reaction as my nonsensical request to remove your vote.

Secondly: I'll humour you and answer your question though. In my eyes, Horus makes a lot of sense, his post 33 was already quite robust, but for some reason it's called "flailing" and an "overreaction", something I can't agree with. I see a rational response to some half-baked allegations. I don't mind the allegations per sé, in the beginning they will always be half-baked and you have to start somewhere, but I don't agree with how Horus was treated on page 2. His "SLOOOOWWWW"-post shows the kind of commitment I like in a player. It's a null read affiliation-wise, true, but someone who obiously want things to move forward in a reasonable pace is 1. not lynch-material on D1 because of the activity this will provide. 2. not lynch-material on D1 because active people should be easier to get a firm read on.

So you don't think explaining himself after he caught flak for his vote is scummy, just normal behavior?

Flak? Wisdom's assertion that he was votehopping is flak? Anyway, I'd say yes, it's pretty normal. In fact, I find people willing to explain themselves more worthy of my trust in general. It gives you something to judge them on. Only when the explanation is bad, it's scummy. If the explanation is good, I see no reason at all why it would be scummy. We all are driven by certain reasons, and I think it's very townish to make yours clear.

@Zionite: And how was my reaction to your vote bad? It was a vote before I had even posted anything, so obviously without a real reason. How could anyone react badly to such a vote? I didn't take it seriously, so I just asked you to remove it in a simplistic manner, not ever seriously thinking that this alone would convince you. How do you see this as an overreaction?

It wasn't really an overreaction, but I expected that if you really didn't take it seriously then you'd simply ignore it. I didn't like that comments on the game state were replaced by a self-conscious fixation. Again, this was the only post of yours that I had to go off of for a read.

You called it an overreaction in post 63. Why call it that if it wasn't really?

I think my vote on Wisdom is also still in a good place. I think it's a very defensive interpretation of 35, and I don't see any reason for this kind of defensiveness, especially from someone who obviously is very sensitive to supposed overreactions himself.

Seems fair. I'm not confident enough to follow you though.

Do you have any other leads that you see? What do you think of Fuzzy's behaviour?

You guys do claims at L-2 right?[/quote]

No. I do the same as Wisdom.

Not that I think this discussion will bring us very far, I realize I've reiterated the majority of what I said before. But I would very much like more activity. When I see the Bingo-game already has 13 pages and started the same day, my heart cries a little bit for this game.

@Wisdom: What do you think of my vote on you? What do you think of Zionite's cases so far?

Not much to go on right now, but both Zionite and Horus are ok in my book, basically because of their high and meaningful activity.
Wisdom and fuzzybutternut I don't like very much.
All the others have left no impression on me whatsoever.

Grimgroove · Post Post #82 (ISO) » Mon May 27, 2013 2:01 am

Oh, I forgot to respond to the first green bit. I wasn't lurking. I was simply not there. There's a difference.

Wisdom · Post Post #83 (ISO) » Mon May 27, 2013 2:06 am

In post 81, Grimgroove wrote:basically because of their high and meaningful activity.

Activity = town?

JasonWazza · Post Post #84 (ISO) » Mon May 27, 2013 2:07 am

I'm going to edit that green to a darker shade cause it hurts my eyes, please try to keep any of the color use to colors that are easy to read.

Grimgroove · Post Post #85 (ISO) » Mon May 27, 2013 2:21 am

In post 83, Wisdom wrote:
In post 81, Grimgroove wrote:basically because of their high and meaningful activity.
Activity = town?

No.
I'm not saying inactive people are scum or that active people are town. The important word is "meaningful".

Meaningful

activity =

leaning

town.
Anyway, call it a policy of mine, but on the first day I'm not inclined to lynch those standing up and trying to make cases. I realize activity by itself is mainly a null-tell, but if you're dealing with active people at least you know they'll give you the chance to read them, enabling you to take more informed conclusions in the future. In the case of Zionite and Horus I expect I'll be getting enough activity from them during later stages in the game, and if they would be scum after all, I think I'd be able to tell after a certain amount of posts, pages and flips, simply because as scum it's difficult to keep your activity in the topic

meaningful

. If not, it's just good play from scum taking the game in both hands. So far it's not just their amount of posts, it's also the amount of sense they make. While Zionite is a bit more lacking in that department when compared to Horus, I do see merit in what he's trying to do, and I think it's only fair to give him the chance to make more cases, now and later.

fuzzybutternut · Post Post #86 (ISO) » Mon May 27, 2013 10:45 am

In post 78, Grimgroove wrote:
In post 75, fuzzybutternut wrote:That's one hell of a way to ask me to answer a question, guy.

Seriously? So if someone would say "Why haven't you washed your hair?", you would not take that as a hint to wash your hair? I guess I'll be communicating very straightforwardly with your from now on.

Your last answer was pretty bad. Something along these lines would have been better:

"Indeed, I had one post before my RVS. Therefore, this question is valid. Here is my answer to it: ... "

Could you fill in the dots?

There really isn't anything to fill in. I literally had one post before my RVS vote. There is no rule stating that your first post in game HAS to be RVS.

Does Bo Know · Post Post #87 (ISO) » Mon May 27, 2013 10:51 am

I've been skimming.

UNVOTE: fuzzybutternut
VOTE: Zionite

That's L-1. No one fucking hammer yet.

More detailed reads later tonight.

Zionite · Post Post #88 (ISO) » Mon May 27, 2013 3:28 pm

In post 81, Grimgroove wrote:
In post 71, Grimgroove wrote:So, I'm back. I see I'm being accused of lurking? I obviously forgot to state it here, which is my fault, but during the weekends it will always be very difficult for me to come online. I hope this is fine. I always try to make up for that in the weekdays.

Well, you were lurking. But I'm glad to see it's only on weekends.

As far as Zionite's question is concerned about Horus, two things:
Firstly: I don't see the connection between my apparent lack on opinion on Horus and the vote for me. Why are opinions on Horus so important to you, and why mine specifically?

I felt that it was the biggest event of the game so far and it was odd for you to ignore it while fixating on my vote.

I don't agree this actually constitued as a big event, but given the other activity in this topic so far, I guess you could call it the biggest. However, I was only popping my head in, too time-constrained to contribute anything of real value or to read the Horus-Wisdom-Zionite-discussion in depth. If I had to react to anything, I'd only think it logical to respond to any vote on me, even if the vote was only half-serious and my reaction to it as well. As it was my first and only post, I think it's quite a stretch to already start talking about "fixations". From my point of view ignoring a vote, hoping it simply passes, is scummier than anything else. Is your post 48 a fixation on someone voting for you? Saying you'll ignore something is just as much of a reaction as my nonsensical request to remove your vote.

Secondly: I'll humour you and answer your question though. In my eyes, Horus makes a lot of sense, his post 33 was already quite robust, but for some reason it's called "flailing" and an "overreaction", something I can't agree with. I see a rational response to some half-baked allegations. I don't mind the allegations per sé, in the beginning they will always be half-baked and you have to start somewhere, but I don't agree with how Horus was treated on page 2. His "SLOOOOWWWW"-post shows the kind of commitment I like in a player. It's a null read affiliation-wise, true, but someone who obiously want things to move forward in a reasonable pace is 1. not lynch-material on D1 because of the activity this will provide. 2. not lynch-material on D1 because active people should be easier to get a firm read on.

So you don't think explaining himself after he caught flak for his vote is scummy, just normal behavior?

Flak? Wisdom's assertion that he was votehopping is flak? Anyway, I'd say yes, it's pretty normal. In fact, I find people willing to explain themselves more worthy of my trust in general. It gives you something to judge them on. Only when the explanation is bad, it's scummy. If the explanation is good, I see no reason at all why it would be scummy. We all are driven by certain reasons, and I think it's very townish to make yours clear.

@Zionite: And how was my reaction to your vote bad? It was a vote before I had even posted anything, so obviously without a real reason. How could anyone react badly to such a vote? I didn't take it seriously, so I just asked you to remove it in a simplistic manner, not ever seriously thinking that this alone would convince you. How do you see this as an overreaction?

It wasn't really an overreaction, but I expected that if you really didn't take it seriously then you'd simply ignore it. I didn't like that comments on the game state were replaced by a self-conscious fixation. Again, this was the only post of yours that I had to go off of for a read.

You called it an overreaction in post 63. Why call it that if it wasn't really?

I think my vote on Wisdom is also still in a good place. I think it's a very defensive interpretation of 35, and I don't see any reason for this kind of defensiveness, especially from someone who obviously is very sensitive to supposed overreactions himself.

Seems fair. I'm not confident enough to follow you though.

Do you have any other leads that you see? What do you think of Fuzzy's behaviour?

You guys do claims at L-2 right?

No. I do the same as Wisdom.

Not that I think this discussion will bring us very far, I realize I've reiterated the majority of what I said before. But I would very much like more activity. When I see the Bingo-game already has 13 pages and started the same day, my heart cries a little bit for this game.

@Wisdom: What do you think of my vote on you? What do you think of Zionite's cases so far?

Not much to go on right now, but both Zionite and Horus are ok in my book, basically because of their high and meaningful activity.
Wisdom and fuzzybutternut I don't like very much.
All the others have left no impression on me whatsoever.[/quote]

In post 87, Does Bo Know wrote:I've been skimming.

UNVOTE: fuzzybutternut
VOTE: Zionite

That's L-1. No one fucking hammer yet.

More detailed reads later tonight.

Zionite · Post Post #89 (ISO) » Mon May 27, 2013 3:46 pm

Whoops, meant to hit preview.

In post 81, Grimgroove wrote:
In post 71, Grimgroove wrote: As far as Zionite's question is concerned about Horus, two things:
Firstly: I don't see the connection between my apparent lack on opinion on Horus and the vote for me. Why are opinions on Horus so important to you, and why mine specifically?

I felt that it was the biggest event of the game so far and it was odd for you to ignore it while fixating on my vote.

I don't agree this actually constitued as a big event, but given the other activity in this topic so far, I guess you could call it the biggest. However, I was only popping my head in, too time-constrained to contribute anything of real value or to read the Horus-Wisdom-Zionite-discussion in depth. If I had to react to anything, I'd only think it logical to respond to any vote on me, even if the vote was only half-serious and my reaction to it as well. As it was my first and only post, I think it's quite a stretch to already start talking about "fixations". From my point of view ignoring a vote, hoping it simply passes, is scummier than anything else. Is your post 48 a fixation on someone voting for you? Saying you'll ignore something is just as much of a reaction as my nonsensical request to remove your vote.

From my experience, being too self-conscious of the votes on yourself instead of the players around you is considered scummy. The meta may be different here, but that's how I've seen it most commonly.

@Zionite: And how was my reaction to your vote bad? It was a vote before I had even posted anything, so obviously without a real reason. How could anyone react badly to such a vote? I didn't take it seriously, so I just asked you to remove it in a simplistic manner, not ever seriously thinking that this alone would convince you. How do you see this as an overreaction?

It wasn't really an overreaction, but I expected that if you really didn't take it seriously then you'd simply ignore it. I didn't like that comments on the game state were replaced by a self-conscious fixation. Again, this was the only post of yours that I had to go off of for a read.

You called it an overreaction in post 63. Why call it that if it wasn't really?

I considered it a tell of overreaction, but no one else responded to it the same way. So either I'm wrong (which makes the point invalid), or the tell doesn't have the same reliability on MS (which makes it no good anyway).

I think my vote on Wisdom is also still in a good place. I think it's a very defensive interpretation of 35, and I don't see any reason for this kind of defensiveness, especially from someone who obviously is very sensitive to supposed overreactions himself.

Seems fair. I'm not confident enough to follow you though.

Do you have any other leads that you see? What do you think of Fuzzy's behaviour?

I'll wait until the wagon on me blows over to go after Fuzzy. Doing it now will only draw cries of deflection and OMGUS regardless of what I say. I'd rather hear what he has to say first anyway. Other than that, probably Malakittens and Miss Destroyer need a look.

In post 87, Does Bo Know wrote:I've been skimming.

UNVOTE: fuzzybutternut
VOTE: Zionite

That's L-1. No one fucking hammer yet.

More detailed reads later tonight.

I don't like this. What's the rush on the vote if you're going to explain it later?

Does Bo Know · Post Post #90 (ISO) » Mon May 27, 2013 4:01 pm

What's wrong with the vote?

Zionite · Post Post #91 (ISO) » Mon May 27, 2013 4:53 pm

In post 90, Does Bo Know wrote:What's wrong with the vote?

In post 89, Zionite wrote:Whoops, meant to hit preview.
In post 87, Does Bo Know wrote:I've been skimming.

UNVOTE: fuzzybutternut
VOTE: Zionite

That's L-1. No one fucking hammer yet.

More detailed reads later tonight.
I don't like this.
What's the rush on the vote if you're going to explain it later?

I don't know why I have to do this.

Does Bo Know · Post Post #92 (ISO) » Mon May 27, 2013 5:13 pm

Pressure, thought it would help more in the event someone more active came to question you later.

Why does it bother you that I put you at L-1 now?

Does Bo Know · Post Post #93 (ISO) » Mon May 27, 2013 5:22 pm

Actually, I don't know why you're bothered, so let me ask this:

Why does it matter if I rushed to vote you without detailing my reads yet?

Zionite · Post Post #94 (ISO) » Mon May 27, 2013 6:22 pm

I'm used to L-2 being claim range. L-1 feels like rushing things, especially when you're not even going to explain the vote at all. Pressure I can understand, but you led us to believe there was something more to it and still have not produced the details promised.

Zionite · Post Post #95 (ISO) » Mon May 27, 2013 6:28 pm

Anyone could hammer me right now and just say "oops". I've seen it happen when town forget to check the VC and accidentally lynch someone at L-1. This policy makes sense assuming only scum would hammer at this juncture, but having seen town do it too makes me nervous when there hasn't been much presented against me.

Horus · Post Post #96 (ISO) » Mon May 27, 2013 6:39 pm

In post 76, fuzzybutternut wrote:
In post 29, Horus wrote:fuzzybutternut: You had been posting during RVS without random-voting, then I voted for you for not voting and then yiu random-voted. Do you see value in RVS participation? If so, then why were you abstaining until I brought it up? If not, then why did you join in at my prompting?
I had one post before my RVS. Therefore, this question is invalid.

Technically two posts (the former having initiated the game), but ok.

In post 86, fuzzybutternut wrote:There really isn't anything to fill in. I literally had one post before my RVS vote. There is no rule stating that your first post in game HAS to be RVS.

True, but your meta indicates that you do RVS in your first post 75% of the time, and that 50% of the time you don't as Scum, so I think this concern is valid.

Spoiler: Due Diligence

The results were not firm enough to be conclusive, but still fall close enough in line with my theory (that you are more cautious in your approach to the earliest stages of the game as Scum) to make me comfortable with keeping this vote.

Horus · Post Post #97 (ISO) » Mon May 27, 2013 7:05 pm

In post 79, Zionite wrote:I've had this argument before in a recent game. My findings were that it's fine to vote for pressure and call it what it is. It may not be as effective as campaigning, but it doesn't take that much effort either and stays away from being disingenuous. I play as honestly as I can because it's easier than "pretending" to try to lynch someone when you really just want a read.

Well yeah, you can call a pressure-vote what it is and it can still be effective, and yeah, you shouldn't "pretend" to push a lynch, but I personally prefer to only pressure-vote someone I would in fact be willing to lynch, and then follow through if they don't deliver. You generally only have to do this to someone once before they start taking your vote seriously, but I digress.

fuzzybutternut · Post Post #98 (ISO) » Mon May 27, 2013 7:08 pm

lol Horus, stop being so damn town. It hurts.

RachMarie · Post Post #99 (ISO) » Mon May 27, 2013 7:28 pm

ehhh yeah cant see scumz putting that kind of effort into making a point like Horus just did... he can go in my town pile for now.

If anyone hammers right now without doing INTENT and giving you time to respond claim and so on, Zionite, then we would definitely be looking at him or her hardcore on D 2.

claiming at l-2 that seems different. Here it is at l-1 with intent to hammer on you.