Replacing Chamber. Will read this game now.
But I must say that the flavour written and the person killed as NPC are fun and very creative
semioldguy wrote:Unvote; Vote: ZazieR
Has a tendency to excessively lurk in every game we've played together as the game goes on (with the exception of one in which he was killed night one) and always to the detriment of the town. The lurking into oblivion after early spells of activity has not been enjoyable in any of those games and I don't want it to happen for a fourth time. I'd much rather just get rid of ZazieR now.
GreenDude wrote:That is like unfair lynching me cause of my color!I've been begging the mod to do somethingbut there's no other color's beside white. Do you want white?? Huh, would you like that better than yellow?
vote:ChiboSempaifor racist against yellow crayons. And that goes for the rest of the crayons who are racist too!!
Glork wrote:Did you know that unexplained votes are the best things ever?
A few underlying principles:
1) Players -- especially when scum -- like to be comfortable. Bringing pressure that is difficult to respond to pulls them out of their comfort zones, making them react in a way they normally wouldn't react. This makes it significantly more likely that they will say or do something particularly telling of their alignments.
2) In the long-term, players often reveal the most about themselves when acting on limited information. While this maxim generally applies to the notion that D1 and D2 are the most revealing parts of a mafia game, it also applies when dealing with "unexplained votes."
2a) Let's look at the general case of an unexplained vote from a player of unknown alignment. The motivation for a protown player is to discern the intent of the voter, generally in order to obtain their alignment. The motivation of an anti-town player is to discern the intent of the voter (which sometimes involves seeking alignment) and to best utilize the situation to their advantage. There is an important, if subtle, difference. By cultivating our exploration of these differences, we can find new tools to seek and destroy the scumbaggoes amongst us.
2b) Now consider the case where I am a confirmed protown player making an unexplainded vote. In this case, my motivation is very clear. In some way, I am seeking to find scum. Here, I'm actually going to dip into one of my trade secrets and note that protown players tend to have a broader picture of our voter's intent, whereas scums tend to focus more on themselves (or, sometimes, their allies). If the person I'm voting is more concerened with how everyone else reacts than with deflecting my attack, they are usually more likely to be protown. If they immediately seek to bury someone else in accusations, wildly reject my vote/claims outright, or blame-shift, they're more likely to be scum.
3) Taking an alternate approach to scumhunting allows one to take advantage of "weak points" in other players' gameplay. Most mafia is played in the public arena. Players openly debate and discuss who is scum and why. Thus, most people tend to focus most of their attention on growing and evolving as players in this realm of open banter. A couple years ago, I learned that the vast majority of players didn't know how to react to certain circumstances. One such circumtsance was a completely irrational, yet intensely focused onslaught from an established player. This was a very noticeable chink in the mafia community's collective armor, and while you had your Internet Strangers and your Baby Jesuses (the paragons of this style of play), people who effectively played without explanation were very few and far between. Thus, very few players put the necessary time, thought, and effort into ensuring that they new how to interact with these playstyles. Over time, parts of the community evolve, and playing such playstyles shifts and changes just as the overall game meta does. Not only do they not know how to react, and not only do they give more information about themselves, but their weaknesses are actually exploitable, allowing the attacker as an individual to crack other players' shells and expose their soft, fleshy interiors, thus opening the game up for everybody.
SocioPath wrote:semioldguy wrote:Anyone who tries to vote for someone because they have an unreadable color will earn my vote from this point forward. There are much easier ways to deal with being able to read them (such as highlighting all their text with your mouse).A silly blanket statement that can't be enforced.
You can't lynch someone based solely on them voting for a person over an off color.
Nor did you follow up on your apparently hollow threat. I voted you for an even more ridiculous reason, and yet you shrug if off as a random vote. I already made a random vote. And you were already calling out people with their random votes. And yet you ignore a blatantly obvious post that is right up your alley? Is that because it was targeted towards you? You didn't want to OMGUS yourself especially after calling someone else out on it with your NEXT post after my vote?
semioldguy wrote:I thought it would look like I was stretching my original intent and that would look bad. I didn't want to make an additional excuse for a poor vote. Even moreso because I saw something that was more worthy of comment. So I commented on that instead as it would be more productive and progress the game/scumhunting
semioldguy wrote:You guys are basically calling for a policy lynch on chamber, which is just as anti-town as the claims you have of him. Even players who play in anti-town ways will have tells that will out them when they are scum as opposed to town. Policy lynching avoids and ignores actual scumhunting.
semioldguy wrote:What's the point to all the self reminders and the "elaborate later" type comments? I don't like that at all. If you have something to say either say it now or keep it to yourself until it's relevant, hinting at it does the town no good and is only a distraction.
semioldguy wrote:ZazieR wrote:Post 27 – Why the ‘warning’,SoG?Because I didn't want people making a useless vote for that reason. I thought it better to warn than to not warn. As if I didn't warn and just voted someone who said that it could be seen as an excuse to vote that person rather than an excuse to vote that reason. It's more difficult for people to try to frame or misrepresent me if I provide a warning declaring my intentions. It also ends the random voting.
SoG wrote:ZazieR wrote:Post 32 – Scummy fromSoGfor pointing out a possible breadcrumb.In my experience I've seen more breadcrumbs from scum than I have from town. I am also against breadcrumbing entirely, for reasons already mentioned.
SoG wrote:ZazieR wrote:Post 60 – Though Kirby gave multiple reasons what he didn’t like about a certain post of Chamber. You,SoG, didn’t do so, but you do state that you agree with most of Kirby’s points. Why didn’t you point these reasons out then?
Also, can you re-phrase the last sentence?I felt that I did, but that he just stated them better. As for rephrasing I thought it was pretty straightforward. He issued an ultimatum/challenge to the town, that in itself is scummy and was deserving of my vote. This was prior to the meta defense of chamber and the ultra-fast wagon.
SoG wrote:ZazieR wrote:SocioPath wrote:semioldguy wrote:Anyone who tries to vote for someone because they have an unreadable color will earn my vote from this point forward. There are much easier ways to deal with being able to read them (such as highlighting all their text with your mouse).A silly blanket statement that can't be enforced.
You can't lynch someone based solely on them voting for a person over an off color.
Nor did you follow up on your apparently hollow threat. I voted you for an even more ridiculous reason, and yet you shrug if off as a random vote. I already made a random vote. And you were already calling out people with their random votes. And yet you ignore a blatantly obvious post that is right up your alley? Is that because it was targeted towards you? You didn't want to OMGUS yourself especially after calling someone else out on it with your NEXT post after my vote?I like this argument that Socio used in Post 77. SoG’s post that follows doesn’t explain this as he didn’t change his vote at all in the post that he’s describing. Why didn’t you do so,SoG?This was already explained. I said that I would vote for the next person to do X. SocioPath didn't do X, he did Y. Therefore, I did not vote for him. Yes, X and Y are very, very similar, but they are not the same.
SoG wrote:Zaz wrote:Regarding the bolded: Seems somebody is scared to get attention.If that were true, which it isn't, then why would I point it out and bring attention to it myself?
semioldguy wrote:Pointing out a breadcrumb isn't scummy. Scum would benefit more from keeping quiet about it and just silently killing that person during the night.
Manzcar wrote:ZazieR wrote:Post 137 – Scummy. Will elaborate later.Please elaborate now. You took the time to make the post take the time to validate your claim. I would like to know how it is scummy. I don't see anything scummy there. Statements without reason do nothing for the town.
Kirby I don't find you scummy it just seemed lazy to me for you to want others to tell you who to vote for. Which is how I took your statement.
Josh Lyman wrote:semioldguy wrote:What's the point to all the self reminders and the "elaborate later" type comments? I don't like that at all. If you have something to say either say it now or keep it to yourself until it's relevant, hinting at it does the town no good and is only a distraction.
semioldguy wrote:Manzcar wrote:Please elaborate now. You took the time to make the post take the time to validate your claim.... Statements without reason do nothing for the town.I agree completely.
I agree. Posting "reminders" to yourself in a public thread seems ..... I don't know, less than Town. Surely you have the means to keep notes to yourself on your own computer, or perhaps a piece of paper, or maybe scrawling in crayons on the wall.... It just seems to be shitting up the thread for no apparent reason.
Josh Lyman wrote:ZazieR wrote:Post 31 – Scummy fromJoshdue to calling a player out on lurking on the same day (At least, in my time) that the game started.You missed the part where I said "semi-random" -- right?
Snow_Bunny wrote:ZazieR wrote:Post 121 – Scummy post fromBunny. First of all, acknowledging that it’s Chamber’s playstyle.What's so scummy about that? I've seen playstyles like that before, so I'm not really surprised.
Bunny wrote:ZazieR wrote:The part about Budja shows some serious fence-sitting.Fence-sitting? I gave my opinion on it. What else did you want? A whole speech about why I don't buy the case?
Bunny wrote:ZazieR wrote:And as SoG already asked, explain the part about Sociopath.I meant Sociopath pointing out SoG's rolefishing in post 32
Bunny wrote:ZazieR wrote:But now for the thing that is really scummy. The part about SoG. Reason stated that he’s scummy is the vote jumping. Yet, she agrees that Chamber’s playstyle is scummy and she can see the Budja case. Meaning that she thinks that SoG had good reasons to switch votes, yet still sees it as scummy. Explain why.One thing is the usual playstyle, the other is a specific situation. I can see why others would go for Budja case, but I don't think it's strong enough (more like a misunderstanding).
SoG's vote jumping I don't like, but that doesn't mean he can't have reasons to move from one place to another. I just don't like that he can't keep a vote in a single place. And that's not the real problem. The thing is that he moves back and forth from the players he previously voted. That, I don't like. I'm not saying that it's a scum marker, but it's something worthy of looking up.
semioldguy wrote:ZazieR wrote:In response to the part of Kirby's three arguments against Chamber -SoG, with which of those did you agree?All of his points minus the part that he thought abrasiveness was a scum tell. I already said this. You should read my posts.
Yes, I think it is potentially scummy that Josh Lyman might have breadcrumbed. I stand by my opinion that scum would be better off not bringing up potential breadcrumbs. If you think scum benefit from talking about it (I don't think this) then why do you keep bringing it up? That seems like a contradiction to me. If you were town and thought this then you would just request to have the subject dropped.
Chamber's explanations were good, yet despite that his wagon and lynch support continued to grow. Yes I am suspicious of his wagon, as evidence by my reason for voting Budja and my case against him.
The questions you are asking almost all have already been answered if you go back and actually read my posts.
Josh Lyman wrote:ZazieR wrote:Josh Lyman wrote:ZazieR wrote:Post 31 – Scummy fromJoshdue to calling a player out on lurking on the same day (At least, in my time) that the game started.You missed the part where I said "semi-random" -- right?No. It's why I pointed it out.
Got it. No random voting stage withZazieR.
Anything else I need to know to keep from offending you?
Manzcar wrote:ZazieR wrote:Manzcar wrote:ZazieR wrote:Post 137 – Scummy. Will elaborate later.Please elaborate now. You took the time to make the post take the time to validate your claim. I would like to know how it is scummy. I don't see anything scummy there. Statements without reason do nothing for the town.
Kirby I don't find you scummy it just seemed lazy to me for you to want others to tell you who to vote for. Which is how I took your statement.The way you formulated your question from the earlier post and not responding to what Kirby's response was.Can you please elaborate.
How did I formulate the question in a scummy way?
Also are you saying that I am scummy because I didn’t respond to Kirby’s response? .
Manzcar wrote:SocioPath wrote:Manzcar wrote:semioldguy wrote:@people not voting
Why aren't you voting? Who would you vote if you had to place a vote right now?because in my mind I do not have a definite lead as to where I should place my vote.
Not liking this.
There are no "definates" as of now, and you certainly can't say you don't have ideas about anyone so far.
Perhaps scum that is a little too worried to place a vote on someone they know isn't scum.
Withholding votes is withholding information.
Not liking this.
WIFOM. To say because I don't feel like I have a good enough idea or a definite idea in my own mind who I find scummy means I am scum trying to hide is scummy. Why are you trying to force an accusation and place suspicion because I answered a question? Do you think it is more protown to just vote for anyone or to vote when you feel comfortable about the vote? You are inferring that I am withholding information because I am not voting but I fully answered the question withholding nothing that I am thinking. So how did I withhold information?
Pome wrote:As you can see, I don't have very many reads, but I'm doing this because I think it's important to contribute.
ZazieR wrote:So my list would be as follows:
Scummy - SoG, Manzcar and to a lesser extent Budja
Neutral to Leaning scummy: Bunny, Pome, GD and Josh (Need to post more to get a better impression)
Who?: Nacho
Towny: Socio, Kirby and Chibo.
GreenDude wrote:Sorry for not posting more. I don't get to go on the computer very often.
I would probably say that the scum are hiding. Just sitting back as a few people make arguments and try to lynch semioldguy.
I don't find where SoG is scummy. Could someone write out the case on him?
If SoG is townie, then the scum most likely have their vote on him but aren't saying anything to keep the bandwagon moving. At least that's what I think.
Josh wrote:*Except ZazieR, but I need to stay far, far away from the crazy right now.
semioldguy wrote:chamber wrote:From the wiki:
OMGUS stands for "Oh My God, You Suck (for voting for me)!". it is sometimes used as a shorthand to indicate that you are voting for someone primarily because they voted for you.
Since my vote wasn't because you voted me at all it is in fact NOT an omgus vote.
Also I don't explain my votes, get over it.
If you don't explain your vote, then you can't explain that it wasn't an OMGUS vote.
ZazieR wrote:Pome wrote:As you can see, I don't have very many reads, but I'm doing this because I think it's important to contribute.Noticed that. One scum read, two you think are town and all the others come basically down as neutral. So why did you make a list, instead of focusing your post mainly on the player you think is scummy?
Secondly, you write at SoG a bit that you don't think it's scummy to be not voting. Yet, it's SocioPath who attacks Manzcar for something like this on this page. Why didn't you point this out at SocioPath, especially when you said that you like his views?
Also, Zaz= he/him
Nachomamma8 wrote:My opinion on the bandwagon on semioldguy:
While I like the bandwagon in terms of the pressure it's giving, I can't say I'm a big fan of where the bandwagon's going. So far, the bandwagon on SoG has made everyone focus on his scumminess, leaving the rest of us in the dark. While I see mentions of what seems to be the general opinion right about now, I don't see it being a valid enough reason to put him at L-2, or even a valid enough reason to put my vote on him just yet.
The first vote he places on Zazie looks like a pressure to get him to be active, rather than an attempt to get a lynch. And as for his supposed "hypocrisy"... I view that as an attempt to avoid saying that it's simply a pressure vote; after all, that would entirely remove its potentcy. Notice how he hints this with the phrase "I am a pressure vote guy though...".
Also, I've been a big fan of semioldguy's aggressiveness; let's not forget who brought us out of the RVS, shall we? I'm getting a pro-town read from him simply because he doesn't seem afraid to mention what looks scummy, nor does he seem to tunnel on anyone; when he sees something scummy, he questions it.
As for who I actually find suspicious at this moment, that award falls to Budja. I'm not a big fan of his complete lack of questioning and scumhunting, and his little counting fiasco seemed to me like an attempt to push the Chamber bandwagon over the edge.
And because Im a big fan of encouragement, here's aVote: Budjato help the explanations come faster.
Nachomamma8 wrote:Also, I've been a big fan of semioldguy's aggressiveness; let's not forget who brought us out of the RVS, shall we? I'm getting a pro-town read from him simply because he doesn't seem afraid to mention what looks scummy, nor does he seem to tunnel on anyone; when he sees something scummy, he questions it.
Nachomamma8 wrote:That was just the very explanation I was looking for.
Unvote: Budja. Vote: Josh Lyman
That vote will not move until I see five posts from him.
That is a good point, I hadn't thought of that. However, it doesn't explain why semioldguy is still voting for Zazie and in fact pushing for his lynch for no good reason.
It seems to me that you have the two confused. SoG may still be voting for Zazie, but he definitely isn't fighting for the lynch. Right now, he seems to be defending himself, which I think he's doing a pretty good job of.
Josh Lyman wrote:ZazieR wrote:@Josh
What I don't like about your semi-random vote is:
-It was based upon lurking, while the game had started that day.
-You were the 11th player to post. Only Kirby (The one you voted based upon 'lurking') came after you.Okay, fine. Yes, it was based on lurking,on the first day.What is it about 'jokevote' that you don't get? And, yes, everybody else had posted; that's why I singled out Kirbyfor not posting.Can you say "overanalyzing?" I knew you could.
semioldguy wrote:ZazieR wrote:ZazieR wrote:Hi. The answers are there pretty clearly if you look for them (though probably not in that same post). You seem a little over-concerned with this vote on you considering the attention you are giving it despite that it is the only one you've gotten.
SoG wrote:ZazieR wrote:ZazieR wrote:SoG, why nothing against Post 36?I thought I'd responded to this one in my last big post, but I guess I deleted that part accidentally. What it said was something like "Why would I? He didn't vote for a color being unreadable."
Zaz wrote:As for the last bit of that first quote, it's easy. It has to do with SocioPath's vote. Because his vote could also be defined as 'useless'. Yet, you didn't vote him. Why is the 'useless' vote regarding unreadable colour vote worthy, but not SocioPath's 'useless' vote towards your colour?
semioldguy wrote:ZazieR wrote:Nachomamma8 wrote:Also, I've been a big fan of semioldguy's aggressiveness; let's not forget who brought us out of the RVS, shall we? I'm getting a pro-town read from him simply because he doesn't seem afraid to mention what looks scummy, nor does he seem to tunnel on anyone; when he sees something scummy, he questions it.SoG, your opinion of this quote please.Looks good to me
semioldguy wrote:This is a bad wagon right now.We need to run up a counter wagon to get some responses.
Unvote; Vote: Pomegranate
Josh Lyman wrote:ZazieR wrote:Josh Lyman wrote:ZazieR wrote:@Josh
What I don't like about your semi-random vote is:
-It was based upon lurking, while the game had started that day.
-You were the 11th player to post. Only Kirby (The one you voted based upon 'lurking') came after you.Okay, fine. Yes, it was based on lurking,on the first day.What is it about 'jokevote' that you don't get? And, yes, everybody else had posted; that's why I singled out Kirbyfor not posting.Can you say "overanalyzing?" I knew you could.Once again, it's based upon the 'semi-' bit.Well, whatever. I obviously can't stop you from perseverating over this, but Icanstop responding to it. Therefore, this is my last post concerning my 'semi-random' vote.
Nachomamma8 wrote:ZazieR wrote:Nachomamma8 wrote:<snip>
That is a good point, I hadn't thought of that. However, it doesn't explain why semioldguy is still voting for Zazie and in fact pushing for his lynch for no good reason.
<snip>
Please elaborate on the part in which you say that that was the explanation you were looking for.
Why Josh and not somebody else?
SoG is going for my lynch.
I wanted an explanation for his action. An explanation is what I got.
Why Josh? I looked through and saw a minimal amount of content from Josh. Posts? Sure. Content? No.
And how do you know SoG is going for your lynch? You aren’t psychic, are you?
Nacho wrote:ZazieR wrote:Dear SoG,
Can you please help me? When I thought I found the three scum in you, Pome and Manz, Nacho suddenly decided to act as a possible buddy of yours. Whom of the three is not your buddy?
Please respond asap
Zaz
You mind explaining why I'm acting as a scum buddy to SoG? Because I don't agree with a bandwagon that doesn't have a whole lot of thought put into it?
Nachomamma8 wrote:Not to me.
-You do tunnel
-You state that you only point out the scummy things of your top 2 suspects.
Making the last two statements invalid.
Surely you're not serious. You have been focused on ONE suspect this entire game, and you're saying someone else is tunneling? Forgive me if I'm missing something here, but the only scummy thing you actually pursued came from SoG.
Secondly, I fail how to see how the second bullet point is scummy. Your two major subjects are the two people who you have the most information on. So, in focusing on the two scummiest, you get a lot better read on someone, as opposed to flying all over the place and pouncing on scummy things about everyone. It doesn't mean your not noting it, but it does mean your keeping silent about it.