Mini 865 -- Evil Eyes (Over)

[Symbol]

Played in another game with you.

[MrSuave]

Hello, Nuwen. Hello, all you jerks who failed to greet me within two minutes of the mod note.

Vote: Toro.

FOS: ekiM, Nuwen, Hoopla.

MrSuave should request a day vigilante role PM from the mod, then kill himself.

SophistricDoctine joke-voted MrSuave to L-3 and got yelled at. Immediately afterward, Hoopla put Suave at L-2 and no one seemed to care. Noted.

Oh, and hello, RECK.

Well that wasn't a very nice hello D=

@Hoopla

I'm Not.

[Symbol]

Hoopla, thoughts on MrSuave?

[Symbol]

Oh, it really is spelled "Sophistric." I should trust my abilities more.

[geekalicious]

Geek, what do you think of Reckoner's vote on Tubby and Tubby himself?

Hi Hoopla.

Not sure exactly what to think of xRECKONERx's vote on tubby216 right now. x seems to be moving his vote in the game a lot. However, tubby216 has been lurking and hardly contributing, so I don't necesarilly think it's scummy.

And hello, Symbol. Care to explain any of your voting/ FoS-ing reasoning?

[Symbol]

Okay, then.

Nuwen. Isos. 2, 9, 11.

Hoopla. Isos. 4, 8, 13, 15.

Toro. Iso. 1. Compare. No record of Toro-town doing that. Also, iso. 4: feeble word choice and stating the obvious.

I get where you're coming from

thinking it's coaching, but I'm

just

posting my

PoV

really

.

---

I've lost interest in Mike, for now.

---

Unvote. Vote: iamausername.

[Nuwen]

Symbol, your numbers mean nothing without explanations to accompany them. PBPA's without opinion or expansion are a vapid way of appearing active without committing yourself to any stance. What about my 2, 9, 11 and Hoopla's 4, 8, 13, 15 bother you?

How big of a sample size do you typically base meta assumptions on?

[tubby216]

Okay, then.

Nuwen. Isos. 2, 9, 11.

Hoopla. Isos. 4, 8, 13, 15.

Toro. Iso. 1. Compare. No record of Toro-town doing that. Also, iso. 4: feeble word choice and stating the obvious.

I get where you're coming from

thinking it's coaching, but I'm

just

posting my

PoV

really

.

---

I've lost interest in Mike, for now.

---

Unvote. Vote: iamausername.

un impressed vote stays

[geekalicious]

Symbol,
1. You have absolutely no analysis with your posts. Scummy.
2. If you're going to put something like this for example:

Nuwen. Isos. 2, 9, 11.

where you just post the numbers, then at least make the numbers hyperlinks. It is going to be painful to go back through the thread and find each of these posts the way that you've labeled them.
3. Then, at the end of your post when you've finally done some sort of explanation for your previous reasoning, you slap your vote on iamausername with no explanation. WTF?

[Symbol]

PBPA's without opinion or expansion are a vapid way of appearing active without committing yourself to any stance.

You don't think FOSes commit to a stance?

How big of a sample size do you typically base meta assumptions on?

It varies. The only meta I did here was Toro (a quick check on self-votes).

1. You have absolutely no analysis with your posts. Scummy.

Well, I broke down on Toro and did a short analysis there. That aside, why is lack of analysis scummy?

3. Then, at the end of your post when you've finally done some sort of explanation for your previous reasoning, you slap your vote on iamausername with no explanation. WTF?

Right. Why is that deserving of "WTF"?

where you just post the numbers, then at least make the numbers hyperlinks. It is going to be painful to go back through the thread and find each of these posts the way that you've labeled them.

Actually, if you can master the arcane art of reading players in isolation, listing iso. posts is infinitely easier on the reader than setting up three or four different hyperlinks for each player.

un impressed vote stays

Sure, about as unimpressive as your intermittent lurking and drab one-liners.

[MacavityLock]

3. Then, at the end of your post when you've finally done some sort of explanation for your previous reasoning, you slap your vote on iamausername with no explanation. WTF?

Right. Why is that deserving of "WTF"?

It may not be deserving of a WTF, but it is definitely deserving of questioning.

where you just post the numbers, then at least make the numbers hyperlinks. It is going to be painful to go back through the thread and find each of these posts the way that you've labeled them.

Actually, if you can master the arcane art of reading players in isolation, listing iso. posts is infinitely easier on the reader than setting up three or four different hyperlinks for each player.

You know what's even better? Quoting the offending posts and pointing out what you find suspicious. It certainly makes things a lot easier for me to read.

[Symbol]

Since Nuwen squandered her chance to post a reaction I could twist into lynch material, I guess I'll lay out my beef with her right now.

I get a sour gut read off of iso. 2. I realize townies do this at times, but joking about alignment at your own expense is lame, and as far as I'm concerned it's painfully gratuitous as far as town strategy, methodology, win condition goes. Furthermore, it's a deliberate injection of WIFOM into the game at a stage when you

really

have no reason to do so.

Isos. 9 and 11:

1. From a scum perspective, Iam's vote on Geek would make little sense - he placed it early, without case material to stand on. The intent obviously comes from a non-scum faction pressuring out more information, prioritizing scum hunting over personal appearance.

That's a paper-thin reason for IAUN. I'm taking heat for acting similarly.

2.

Geek's posts fish for any information, any material, regardless of whether it's alignment indicative.

Even after I declined to answer his post 72, he continued to push the age issue.

Geek commits to a stance and says

Nuwen is scummy for fishing out information that isn't indicative of alignment

(here's were Geek becomes scummy - not because he believes I'm scummy, but because he's opportunistically using an alignment neutral action as fuel for a case)

---

It may not be deserving of a WTF, but it is definitely deserving of questioning.

I clearly asked the former and not the latter. I'm intrigued that players are homing in on my unreasoned vote switch when they didn't home in on, for example, IAUN's.

You know what's even better? Quoting the offending posts and pointing out what you find suspicious. It certainly makes things a lot easier for me to read.

Patience. It's a process, not an event. I get double the reactions this way, at a bare minimum.

[Nuwen]

You don't think FOSes commit to a stance?

Mass FOSes are for pussies and scum. In moderation, a FOS can serve as a supplement to a vote elsewhere in order to spread out pressure. Symbol effectively put more than a quarter of the game on his "suspicious" list, but has made no move to explain himself. It's an easy way to set himself up to join whatever wagon becomes popular ("I found x scummy early on too, see!").

He's done a remarkable job at being active while contributing nothing tangible.

unvote, vote Symbol

.

I also have a problem with a single game meta. A

very large

sample size is necessary to determine whether a behavior is consistent with a single alignment. Meta is especially difficult to develop on newer players (<1 year here), because it takes more than a handful of games to settle into a style; newer players are more likely to adapt, alter, and actively change their play styles while being accustomed to mafia nuances. Anyone using meta tells with such a limited sample size is either dumb or scum.

[Nuwen]

twist into lynch material.

Oh hi simulpost.

You're going to have to do a little more than bold my posts to explain your problem. Is there something I should clarify?

I want everyone that isn't Geek to weigh in on Symbol's foray into the game. I want Toro and Hoopla to speak first, preferably.

[Nuwen]

I'd also like to hear why Symbol is suspicious of Hoopla and what changed between the time he FOS'd Mike and lost interest in him.

[Symbol]

Mass FOSes are for pussies and scum. In moderation, a FOS can serve as a supplement to a vote elsewhere in order to spread out pressure. Symbol effectively put more than a quarter of the game on his "suspicious" list, but has made no move to explain himself. It's an easy way to set himself up to join whatever wagon becomes popular ("I found x scummy early on too, see!").

You don't think a quarter or so of the game is scum? You don't value temporary omission of reasons in order to garner twice the reaction from the FOS targets (once before the reasons are laid out, and then again afterward)?

He's done a remarkable job at being active while contributing nothing tangible.

I've been here for a few hours and posted more than enough. "Remaining active" is nonsense.

I also have a problem with a single game meta. A very large sample size is necessary to determine whether a behavior is consistent with a single alignment.

1. Assuming this is an error on my part, why does it make me scummy?
2. In Toro's three games as town, he has never self-voted during RVS. In his two games as scum, he has self-voted once during RVS. The sample size is small, but I think it says something. Of course I'm not committed to driving Toro into the ground. It's page 8. Scum tells are scarce.

Anyone using meta tells with such a limited sample size is either dumb or scum.

Why did you choose scum instead of dumb? The two options are equally plausible, yet for someone who demands immediate presentation of logic behind decisions made while scum-hunting, you gave no logical support to your inclination toward one.

Ho-hum. Made it half a page before sliding back into regular style. There goes the whole point of creating an alt.

You're going to have to do a little more than bold my posts to explain your problem. Is there something I should clarify?

I thought it was relatively clear, but I may have missed something during my read-through. In the first quote you accuse Geek of egregious fishing, but then you take his argument that you're fishing egregiously and use it against him.

Again, I might've missed something here as the contradiction seems blindingly obvious.

I want everyone that isn't Geek to weigh in on Symbol's foray into the game. I want Toro and Hoopla to speak first, preferably.

Why not Geek?

[Symbol]

I'd also like to hear why Symbol is suspicious of Hoopla and what changed between the time he FOS'd Mike and lost interest in him.

I'm not outlining Hoopla (who is 90% instinct anyway as opposed to your 75%) until she responds to the opening scuffle.

As for Mike, I did a reread and didn't find him as shady as I did the first time.

Now are you going to try to warp change in opinion into a scum tell (which would unfortunately damn this site's entire population)?

[Nuwen]

I really dislike single-sentence responses in games; they skew focus and make replying a royal pain. Just as a heads up, I'm prone to misreading heavily split posts (and I think their posters are equally likely to miss "the point"). Paragraphs are our friends. Nuwen loves and worships the paragraph. Nuwen is far more likely to read and reflect upon your warm, joyous words in paragraph form (no, this doesn't mean I won't read other posts - I'll just light a candle and pray you're struck down by my gods).

It's impossible to tell how many scum are in a game before a set of night actions resolve, but I'd predict ~three in a game this size. Symbolic, do you think you found them all in your first post? I don't see a plain town motivation to announcing a broad spectrum of unexplained suspicion - reaction fishing can come from either alignment. The mass FOS parses as an action more likely to be taken by scum, who need to gain early footholds in wagons and avoid obvious switches.

Iam's unexplained voting differed from Symbolic's because of timing, as I explained before. The first few vote changes out of the RVS draw the entire game's attention. An unexplained vote 8 pages in does not have the same town implications to me (in fact, it's anti-town because it draws

negative

attention to your behavior. If you're town, that's bad. If you're scum, you're granted the opportunity to feel out which wagon you'll be pursuing).

Reread my my 107 very, very slowly. Follow the time-sensitive chain of events. I said that our issues with each other are very similar, separated only by his step towards a vote first.

You're going to explain your suspicions (Hoopla, original read on Mike) or you're going to be lynched. There will be no precedent set in this game that permits players to dance in and out of suspect trains without being held accountable.

try to warp

I call 'em as I see 'em.

[Nuwen]

Why not Geek?

Symbol,
1. You have absolutely no analysis with your posts. Scummy.
2. If you're going to put something like this for example:

Nuwen. Isos. 2, 9, 11.

where you just post the numbers, then at least make the numbers hyperlinks. It is going to be painful to go back through the thread and find each of these posts the way that you've labeled them.
3. Then, at the end of your post when you've finally done some sort of explanation for your previous reasoning, you slap your vote on iamausername with no explanation. WTF?

After this post, I don't think Symbol and Greek are likely to be scum together. I want to hear Geek's reads elsewhere to see whether or not they're more town-motivated than his earlier posts.

[Nuwen]

*

not likely to be scum together.

Important distinction there.

[Symbol]

You're going to explain your suspicions (Hoopla, original read on Mike) or you're going to be lynched. There will be no precedent set in this game that permits players to dance in and out of suspect trains without being held accountable.

I will wait for Hoopla to reply, then post my suspicion on her. After that you can lynch me; I don't mind. My original read on Mike was vaguely lurker scum, but that instantly changed to null upon reread.

I said that our issues with each other are very similar, separated only by his step towards a vote first.

I don't follow. What makes his willingness to drop a vote like that scummy?

The mass FOS parses as an action more likely to be taken by scum, who need to gain early footholds in wagons and avoid obvious switches.

That's a bull tell. A vote plus an FOS on four players is not a scummy opening action taken by a replacement.

Yecch. I may as well switch over to my main account as my natural style clearly can't live up to the objective of this self-experiment. Then I'll lose the last stitches of incentive not to post 384 times in one 62-page game with double the grumpiness and double the vacillation about whether or not to believe odd night 0 role claims (oh, God help me; did I just say that?), and all hell will ensue.

Geek's looked fairly pro-town throughout. *shrug* I'm amused, though, that you're cutting him so much slack and frowning on the possibility of a scum team because of a little page 8 distancing.

[Symbol]

An unexplained vote 8 pages in does not have the same town implications to me

Yet plenty of town players regularly rely on this. And it works damn well, when they do it right.

Symbolic, do you think you found them all in your first post?

How do you expect me to answer that. Do I suspect some/most of my page 8 reads are wrong? Of course. But am I sure that judging by the information we have, those four, individually, are the most likely to be scum? Yes.

Should I portray myself as unsure so that I don't get night-killed because my reads really are spot on?

. . .

I really dislike single-sentence responses in games; they skew focus and make replying a royal pain.

Oh, we're going to be friends, then.

[Symbol]

After this post, I don't think Symbol and Greek are likely to be scum together. I want to hear Geek's reads elsewhere to see whether or not they're more town-motivated than his earlier posts.

Huh. I took it as you worrying that he might actually elevate his read on me, since I seem to agree with him on your alignment.

[xRECKONERx]

Symbol, what game were we in together?

[Symbol]

Prepare for headaches, my dear RECK.

Go fuck yourself,

crypto

RECK, I'm not

confirmed

telling you anything.

I thought the night 0 tip would do the trick. Anyway, there's no longer any reason for me to worry about my meta as I've reverted to its trappings.