Open 143: Jungle Republic (Game Over!) before 787

[Dust]

/confirm

[Dust]

Alright, no random voting stage. It's stupid, pointless, and stifles proper discussion.

Instead, I'll direct a few questions towards the Town at large? Only Mafia need not answer. ; P

Do you think it's scummy to say that an RVS shouldn't be conducted? What would you prefer as an alternative? Do any of you have interesting meta on other players?

[Dust]

EBWOP: town at large.

[Dust]

@AA23- I agree with Gorckat. Take a position on the issue.

@Percy- So, yes, the RVS can accomplish what you posted. I think my way works faster than RVS. Is this method working sufficiently well?

@Ash- First, point out the irony between our names. Dust and Ash? Ha-ha~ Other than that, nope, don't really find it interesting. What's the reason behind the vote?

@Dej- For those of us who have never played with them before, explain why they're worth votes, that is, Empking and Zwet.

@Mixo- Are you only voting them because other people say to do so?

FoS: AA and Mixo

[Dust]

@Mixo:

vote zwet

Because I hear it's the thing to do.

This indicated to me that you were just doing it for the sake of conformity. Is that the case, or no?

@Ash- Nah, that's what I was thinking. Was wondering if there was anything else to it, though.

@AA- Only trying to start discussion, in this case. Your answer seemed the most likely to provoke a more interesting discussion, considering you didn't really explain where you stood on the issue, even if you didn't vote. As for my opening post, the idea was two-fold: open up two routes of discussion, one in playstyle, one in meta, and follow them, whether alone or in tandem, into a proper-style debate. RVS and meta, in my experience, are two things most players can bring an opinion on to the table, and thus, we open up more opportunities.

Likewise, I didn't expect for everyone to just follow along and not 'random vote'. However, a random vote in the context of what I've said is entirely different than a 'random vote' in the context of a game where nothing is said against them. In a way, 'random votes' are now more viable for analysis and discussion, because they're significantly less random. Look at Dej and Mixo: from what I understand, those aren't random votes, and are totally serious, and as such, more viable for discussion. Fun stuff, eh?

@Empking- my twofold question to you is this:

1. Why?
2. Why is Dej so against your playing style, as can be attested to by his sig.

[Dust]

Why vote me?

Any reason why you think Dej is a bad player?

[Dust]

@Dej- Wow, that's a pretty compelling argument. Let's see how they perform in this particular game though, before casting any die, so to speak.


@Empking- Alright, whatever you want to think. I don't, however, think your analogy applies. Tell me in Mafia terms why Dej is a bad player.

[Dust]

Wait, what? How is that remark scummy? Could you explain your reasoning?

Could you provide examples, Dej and Emp, of each other's ineptitude? Links to past games?

[Dust]

In tandem with some of the last games you've posted in, Dej's argument makes a lot of sense, Empking. Scanning over games like Open 131, or Mushroom Kingdom II, you don't actually do much to help the town, and I could certainly understand his position if I had also had 50+ games with you.

On the other hand, other than Dej's almost unhealthy obsession with lynching you, I don't see much wrong with the just finished Pie game, considering he got nightkilled Night One. His main problem, and what I feel is the source of your accusation of bad play on his part, is the fact that he is absolutely dedicated to lynching you, and doesn't pay attention to much of what you say, which I feel is a mistake.

That said, I think that Empking definitely has some problems with his play style, but nothing to warrant persecution on the level that Dej has suggested.

Percy, what are your thoughts on the game? Acemarksman, if you could answer as well, it'd be appreciated.

[Dust]

Grr...

I'm starting to understand why Hewitt would want to leave a game because of this nonsense.

Can we get some other relevant, non-biased information on this game? I can't see this going anywhere...

[Dust]

This does tend to be my style, although leading the town is not something I normally enjoy doing. If other people stepped up to the plate and started striving towards discussion, I wouldn't butt heads with them because they were doing so. In fact, I'd appreciate the help in working towards easier conversation.

Keep in mind that I made my first decision about Dej's points against Empking before actually reading the games they presented to me for evidence as to why the other was a bad player. After having read the articles, that conclusion, somewhere in the middle, is the choice I came too. Compare before I read the games and after I read the games for an interpretation on how my opinion changed.

My own opinion, right now, is that Dej and Empking have presented enough of their metas against each other, and turning this game into a brawl between the pair of them is neither productive or pro-town, because biases from previous games are overwhelming the actual validity of the meta arguments they offer. The metas they had against each other were perfectly relevant to start, but then they began using them as their own little personal argument, which wasn't even rooted in this game. I wasn't expecting the pair to go off on a page's worth of tirades against each other, hence the 'Grr...' when I realized that I'd led us into a brick wall.

And, on the issue of addressing things to Percy and Acemarksman, the idea was to open up this game to other players within it, and get a fresh idea out. The play of Dej and Empking wasn't exactly conducive to letting other members in to have an opinion, so opening it up to people who hadn't posted yet seemed like a viable idea. 'Pushing' wasn't so much the verb behind that action as 'Prompting'.

[Dust]

The site that Ace is referring to has a policy against letting its members link it out. It's a locally run and operated site.

I would know, O.o'. I run it.

And Ace doesn't understand my scum meta. XP

[Dust]

I think you're either misunderstanding or misrepping a lot of what I was trying to accomplish with my actions.

First and foremost, my goal was discussion-sparking. Read closer to my first sentence: I do not like leading the town. What I do like is being able to discuss things quickly. When I describe my style, what I refer to is my tendencies to spark a lot of discussion, then discuss.

You seem to be paralleling my actions to scummy tendencies. I disagree. I think it's perfectly legit to start discussion independently, which in some situations may look like leading the town, and then fall back to a less leaderly role once all players are engaged and have something to discuss. I myself cannot direct you to any examples of town meta where I have done this, since my other games on this site are not yet finished. However, if you look in Newbie Game 757, you'll see an example of similar play to this, although my role has yet to be confirmed in the game. My entrance is on page 14, for all interested.

As for the argument that I should have known better, how was I supposed to know that we'd have two players who really did absolutely hate each other? Meta discussion can be productive: it gives us clues on differences in play style. Their discussion, while it arose from meta, stopped being useful because it was taken to a heightened extreme that strayed from the original point: I believe Dej is actually advocating for Empking's jusr based on meta, no? That's not the way I wanted things to go at all. Meta, as you say, breeds meta discussion. It shouldn't be bringing about lynch discussion. This lead to the 'Grr...' comment: frustration about how meta discussion seemed to be going in the wrong direction. Besides, I wouldn't call someone out on good or bad meta normally. Look at the start of the Dej/Empking meta session. Did I call them out on that? Nope. Didn't get mad at it until they started really going at it. The same thing would apply to a positive meta situation: not bad when someone gives good meta, and just leaves it at that, but when a pair of players look like they need to get a room because they're getting so buddy-buddy, that's when it would warrant calling out.

I apologize for the text block, but do you see what I'm saying there?

And why is it too early for prompting? I mean, really, what harm does it do the town?

[Dust]

Sorry guys, I've been terribly busy this weekend, and unfortunately, I can't assemble a great response right now. I do, however, need to save my ass, because I'm afraid that someone will drop a quick hammer on me before I have a chance to really get out an defend myself.

This is my ten minute response to all of this stuff. Don't got more time:

Alright, so let's address AA's case in this time:

Hypocrite?

- I thought I'd gone over this with you. The proper meta discussion that was taking place had become warped into a Dej-Empking feud. It was enough to know that they didn't like each other, and why. They took it so many steps further than that, prompting a rerailing of discussion to a more on-track division. I didn't know what I was getting myself into with those two...

Manufacturing Immunity?

- Wouldn't it only count as manufacturing immunity, say, if it was working? The problem with what you're suggesting is that my actions have not manufactured any immunity for me at all. If they had, maybe, I could see where you were coming from. This isn't really an argument I feel is valid because here we are on Day 1, and we haven't seen the effects of very many arguments, other than the fact that the unorthodox gets bashed upon.

People Pleasing

- Yes. I like making other people happy. I don't enjoy stepping on toes. It distracts from finding the real scum. The case you cite as an example was probing for more real discussion: discussion did not have to come from meta and RVS theory. I've already said that the case with Dej and Empking came from starting with Dej's argument without any proof, and moving into my current viewpoint that while Dej is too gung-ho for an Empking lynch, there's definitely something wrong with Empking's playing style.


And now, I really, really have to go. Gonna be late for work.

Don't hang me,

I am the Seer

.

[Dust]

Oh, thank God! I'm not dead! I was so afraid someone would quick hammer while I was at work and SAT prep...

Alright, since I'm not in mortal danger right now, I'm going to start a reread. I think now we have an incredible amount of information, even if the method of gaining it was a bit risky.

[Dust]

*Guys, I'll be sporadic for the next couple of weeks, but I'll try to put in at least one post a night, so I won't call V/LA*

I agree with AA that wagon analysis is really key here, especially from my prospective, knowing that I'm not lying.

I'm inclined to say that AA is town, just based on gut feeling. His behavior doesn't smell of scum, at least to me. That said, I'm going to base the following assumptions on AA being town. If AA is not town, it's probably safe to say that the following assumptions are all wrong. *AA, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. You need only specify Mafia or Werewolf XP*

Now, I think personally that the wagon, while scum-driven, was not made up entirely of scum. That would be fool-hardy of the highest degree. I'd expect the wagon makeup, perhaps, to be more like 3 townies/2 Mafia/1 werewolf. It's not certain, but that feels like a safer guess than assuming the entire wagon was scum. In that regard, let me ping down my feelings on the matter, just vaguely:

Town:
AA
Empking
Percy

Scum:
Zwetschenwasser
Ash
Acemarksman

Those guesses arise, more or less, out of how much involvement each person had in the wagon. The loosest guess there is Ash, *who is really only there because he's the least town of the suspected town members* but I'd be more confident about guessing that Ace and Zwet were scum, especially Ace. His vote on me, was derived from meta which no one else could see, and from my view, is clearly wrong. Nothing else. He never even mentions the topics which other people voted me for, which I find a bit odd, especially on a Page 3 with relatively rich discussion, at least against me. Likewise, I find Zwet's vote odd for 'Killing the discussion phase'. The counterclaim issue has already been brought up, and I agree with people's comments on the scumminess of asking for a counterclaim.

If I were to guess, I'd say that Ace and Zwet might even be partners, which amuses me to no end *Ace has always been vocal on his dislike for Zwet IRL*. This is blind speculation, however.

Thoughts?

[Dust]

To be honest, I don't see the Empking case. I was L-1; there was no way in hell I wasn't claiming. That said, Empking's post really had no effect on me whatsoever, as claiming was my course of action any way.

That said, I don't see how Empking is scum. His urge to not have someone counter was a pro-town move. Sure, if someone had counter-claimed, I'd have known they were scum, but it would have probably led down the tedious path to lynching me before we could get the counter-claiming scum. Because no one has dropped a lying counterclaim, I'm still alive, and the town is spared having to lose their seer Day 1, and probably another Townie night two, before getting to lynch the counter-claimer Day 2.

Likewise, other people were also calling for no-counterclaim. Why haven't you addressed questions to these people as well, AA?

On a different note, I'm still waiting on Ace to put in some more input, but if he doesn't, that's where I'd place my vote. As for AA, I don't understand his issues with Empking, and the entire 'case' seems very forced. This has really shaken my thoughts on his likelihood of being town, and his argument with Mixo isn't really helping.

I'd like to second Dej's movement to stop the entire Mixo v. AA thing, by the way.

In general, I think we need more input from the people who've been sitting on the fringe, like Khamisa and Ash. As long as they're silent, they remain wild cards that are hurting the town inherently through their silence. I'd move equally strongly to hear from Ace, but I understand he's LA until Thursday, so I'll wait until then.

[Dust]

Oh... Well, that's not good.

On the other hand, it's also not true on my part, so perhaps that's why it wasn't as immediately obvious to me.

Due to my own alignment, I don't think it's a particularly scummy thing to do, but I can't really find the proof against the argument on him. My knowledge of my own role invalidates the basis of such a case, and although that doesn't apply as proof for the rest of the town, I wouldn't jump aboard an Empking bandwagon just based on that.

Has he done anything else irregular or scummy?

[Dust]

EBWOP: ...Empking bandwagon just based on that even if I didn't know my innocence.

[Dust]

That's not what I'm saying, AA. Your point, from my perspective, is invalid. However, if Empking is to be the subject of a case, I'd like to see more evidence in favor of it. Surely he must have made some other slip if he was scum? The thing is, I haven't considered him as scum until now because I haven't seen scummy things from him.

I'm simply wondering if there's anything else to this attack on Empking. Is there?

[Dust]

AA, it's not an uncommon scum tactic to divide the way in which people get on wagons. I expressed early the thought that it's very likely the wagon was 3 townies, 1 mafia, 1 wolf, because that would allow for the biggest amount of safety in regard to getting caught up in a mislynch.

A thought just occurred to me. I'm going to go back and reread the people who were arguing for me, and the people who were arguing against me, and how they were connected. It might be a more useful exercise to analyze not simply who was on the wagon, AA, but also who was off of it.

[Dust]

EBWOP: My last post was addressed to AA's 202.

[Dust]

I'll acknowledge what Ace says. On a past account, there was a game where I was scum. However, I didn't stifle the RVS at all. In fact, as I recall, I was one of the random voters. My philosophy on the game has changed a bit since then, but the example Ace is citing isn't relevant.

If it means proving Ace to be lying, I will out myself.

[Dust]

If I can, I'd prefer to be silent on the matter, but I'll suffice it to say that Ace has stopped simply not understanding my scum meta and started to obfuscate the actual truth behind what I did in that game as scum. While I respect him not wanting to bring it up and wouldn't vote him on just the fact that he didn't mention it originally, in that game, there was no way that I was doing anything in that game remotely similar to what I've done in this game in regard to the RVS, and that goes way beyond misrep.

That said, I have no qualms about:

Vote: Acemarksman

[Dust]

@AA- It's a bit embarrassing for me. This new account was for a fresh start.

[Dust]

Can I get meta on Hewitt's posting habits?

[Dust]

No, different scenario Zwet.

This time, it's to confirm what Hewitt is actually doing in the thread. Not for discussion purposes.

[Dust]

The problem I see, AA, with all of your theories, is that if you hold me as scum in all of them, than you're intentionally blocking yourself from a view of the game that could be, and is, more illuminating. Because as you said, I'm doomed, no matter what happens next. You need to be prepared for the opportunity that I might, and will, flip town, so that all of your theories are not pointless when my death occurs.

Consider the other possibilities: who is incriminated if I'm innocent?

Now, I'm not saying that holding me as your One True Scum is bad, even if it is incorrect, but I'd like you to consider the other side, even if you don't change your mind on your strongest opinions (such as the ones on Empking). Your thoughts, even briefly, on the alternatives as you see them would be greatly appreciated.

That said, I still stand by the opinion of earnestly wishing to hear more from Ace. I want to hear his ideas on the game, his thoughts on the progression of the various wagons, a defense of his actions in regard to my wagon, and an explanation of his incorrect use of my meta.

[Dust]

Unfortunately, my innocence/guilt won't be determined until tonight, or later, or so I hope. That said, I'd like to know where you'd feel most comfortable putting your vote, right now, today.

If it's worth much, Ace is the best choice. I'd like to remind you that the game he's referencing is also a game where I participated avidly in the random vote. And if you are who I think you are, this is a game you're familiar with. If you discover my identity, keep it to yourself, but it should be obvious to you at this point.

[Dust]

The thing is, if I hadn't claimed, I probably would have gotten lynched. And that would not be good.

If I had ignored the request to claim, someone would probably have hammered on policy. If I had claimed Townie, they would have pushed the lynch.

Although not ideal, claiming was the best choice for the time because it stopped the town from taking its only advantage away from themselves. We don't want to be crippling ourselves. I'll feel I've done my job if I can take at least one scum to the grave with me. If I hadn't claimed, and gotten lynched, it would have hurt the town way more.

At that moment, I was posting before I had to go to school. I considered the possibility of not claiming, and even not posting, but I had already been bumped down to L-1 practically overnight. It was quite possible that I would have been lynched while I was at school, and had no chance to save myself.

Under that context, I'd like to defend the wisdom of my claiming.

[Dust]

Or, you could just not even assume, and know that I'm telling the truth. ; D Hewitt is right. Fixation on me is not really helping. At all.

Anyway, Ace, answer my questions.

[Dust]

That said, I still stand by the opinion of earnestly wishing to hear more from Ace. I want to hear his ideas on the game, his thoughts on the progression of the various wagons, a defense of his actions in regard to my wagon, and an explanation of his incorrect use of my meta.

There ya go, Ace.

[Dust]

Objection!

This was what I was worried about... I'm positive Zwet is scum. These last pages have given it away.

Why? Lining up a lynch for tomorrow, giving scum a surefire way to get me lynched, and his pursuit of a counterclaim. It all adds up to what I'd feared about werewolves trying to take advantage of my unique position.

So, spelled out, Zwet is scum because of this:

Weak entrance to my wagon on Ace's meta.
Pursuit of a counterclaim after my claim to verify my status as the Seer.
Insistence upon my wagon, even after the Seer claim, invalidating my lynch for today.
Insistence upon lynching me tomorrow, if I don't die tonight.

Well hm! Let's think! What's the scum going to do tonight when you've spelled out your policy? I don't know... How about leave me alive? So that they can then push my lynch the next day, effectively securing a Day 2 town kill.

Sure, AA, my guilt is implied by my survival, but that's a whole lot of WIFOM now, ain't it? If I survive the night, I won't settle for being lynched because of an obvious scum ploy. My goal is one or the other: force the scum to nightkill me, or let them think they can get away with leaving me alive. I will not, however, settle for being lynched regardless of how the day turns out, regardless of how the night turns out, which is what, I believe, Zwet is suggesting, as his posts indicate no desire to give me a fair hearing day 2.

The implications of Zwet's actions are monumental, and I'd stake my livelihood, if I survive the night, on the fact that Zwet is scum.

Ace, you still need to answer my questions, but you're significantly less interesting than Zwet now.

Unvote
Vote: Zwetschenwasser

Does anyone else view Zwet's actions the same way as I?

[Dust]

I know Scum when I see them. You're Scum. Got anything to counter my assertions?

[Dust]

Why?

If you can't provide a more than half-assed explanation, I will do everything in my power to see you lynched.

[Dust]

*My apologies to the mod if these aren't allow, please delete it*

Grah! I'm sorry guys! Go Town!