Executive summary: havingfitz not a fan of Cojin, Acosmist reluctantly comes to Cojin's defense. EF's lurking is a source of disagreement, but the consensus is that he's not a good topic today. Panacea misspoke? Or not? Lawls is not even answering questions directed at him. My vote hasn't changed, gets more solid with each nonresponsive Lawls post.
Forgive any quote failures; this was...a project.
Just to clarify here, this havingfitz discussion has me quoting myself a lot, with his comments in bold right after my quotes...so if it looks like I'm quoting him, I'm usually quoting both of us. Try to keep up.
havingfitz wrote:My comments in bold:
Acosmist wrote: Cojin isn't as scummy as havingfitz thinks.
He may very well be town…but his play so far has him right up there with Lawls in my opinion. It’s just as accurate a statement to say, “Cojin is scummier than Acosmist thinks.”
That line of the summary was a conclusion supported by the rest of the post. You disagree with the conclusion, and you disagree with the logic I used to get there. That's fine; grabbing the conclusion out of the summary paragraph and criticizing it in isolation seems futile.
ISO 0 - Good post by Cojin, as you recognize.
Even the blind pig finds an occasional acorn.
Sometimes the scummy whole will have a townie part. I disagree that the whole is scummy, but I think you should at least concede something to the dude.
That's completely unfair. Cojin's first post is calling Panacea out for an inconsistency in her early posting - she didn't want to place a second vote on someone, so, when she realized she had, she switched to another person...who already had a vote on him. Cojin never said L-3 wasn't a big deal.
I disagree…Pan was freaking a bit at putting someone at L-3, tried to make amends and oops, put someone else at L-3. Despite his shocked next post lamenting Pan being put at L-3 herself (which was inaccurate as she was actually at L-2 and exhibited his lack of game awareness)…he never felt the need to display L-3 shock over Lawls or EF being put at L-3 by Pan. Instead he questions her on why EF at L-3 is an issue and Lawls isn’t (but according to Pan…both her L-3’s were inadvertent [and therefore IMO equivalent to each other])
His omission to express shock at a certain instance of a class of behaviors doesn't estop him from bringing it up later. You're inferring a certain attitude from his silence. You can pour whatever meaning you want into that empty vessel, but you're the source of it, not Cojin.
ISO 2 - He made a grammatical error - he meant "Everybody, besides her flop, why do you think we should lynch her?" He explains that in the next post.
Using his “muddled” thoughts?
You weren't paying enough attention to see the connection between that post and the next one, which would explain your misinterpretation. Note: that's not Cojin's fault.
ISO 3 - His thoughts are a bit muddled here, I agree. I think Cojin should answer these questions. There are non-scummy possible reasons, though, so I wouldn't jump all over him for that...yet.
Muddled = gibberish IMO. Cojin brings out the pessimist in me.
The dismissiveness isn't helping.
ISO 4 - Yep, contentless and a broken promise to boot. I expect that avatar to be pretty awesome when it finally comes.
Agreed
For completeness, let's high-five each other over this again.
ISO 5 - Lawls has been lurking, and Cojin was on him early for it. Point: Cojin.
Uh…ok
Do you disagree?
ISO 6 - Yep, that post was inaccurate. No way to defend that.
Point removed: Cojin
No, that's not how it works. The point would be removed if something about his subsequent post
negated
the value of the previous post. Say Cojin called someone out as being scum, got him lynched, and - mirabile dictu! - that person was scum. We'd give Cojin a point for the analysis leading to the lynch. But suppose Cojin himself bites it at a future time, and we found out he was scum with the original guy - well, remove that point, because correctly identifying your scumbuddy is not an achievement of any kind. The situation here isn't like that. If he screws up, it doesn't negate the fact that he got something right previously.
ISO 7 - Continues to press Lawls.
Press Lawls? He answered a question...there was no pressing IMO…just reiterating what he had already said.
He calls Lawls on what Lawls is doing wrong. It's not a well fleshed-out case, but it's something.
ISO 8 - "Nachomamma", get it?
Ahhhhh…I see…
; Gibberish? He's saying that a person can't defend his behavior in a game by calling back to his town meta, as awareness of one's town meta means one is aware enough to fake it. I agree his grammar is unfortunate (here and in pretty much every post), but his point is valid and relevant to the discussion.
Grammar matters…your explanation makes sense…his is just babbling IMO.
Grammar matters because it facilitates the communication of ideas. But it's just syntax. Semantics matter more. As long as someone here can interpret what Cojin rather unfortunately barely seems able to express, I think his grammarfail is tolerable. I do wish he'd explain in his own words when there's confusion, though, as I don't relish the idea that perhaps other people are unintentionally covering for him when they explain what they think he meant. That's why I've been trying to get him to explain himself rather than assuming the non-scummy reasons he might have.
ISO 9 - That's not gibberish. At all. He's elaborating on his Lawls opinion and bringing up valid points. I don't like the direction your criticism is taking, dismissing Cojin's valid points as "gibberish."
The direction I’m taking is pretty clear…Cojin’s posts are lacking IMO and he is not playing attention to the game…which he has demonstrated numerous times.
The direction you were taking was dismissive of the content of his posts because of the grammar. That's not an acceptable line of attack. I know you have substantive criticisms of him too, and you made some good points, but the repeated "gibberish" dismissals were flat wrong. And I'll call you on that.
Regarding Elementary Fermion: he's lurking, to be sure. Do people see that lurking as scummy or just as a bad habit to be discouraged with pressure? I want thoughts on paper about this.
He is a bit lurky but I can excuse lurking a bit if the posts when they are made make sense. I need to look at EF’s posts a bit closer but he would not be someone I would focus on today. Cojin and Lawls are today’s focus for me.
Thanks, that's probably wise. EF's lurking just seems less malicious than anyone else's, though I can't put my finger on it. Your input is helpful.
BridgesAndBaloons wrote:He's another pretty bad lurker, and while it does appear mostly habit, I get a slight sense that he doesn't care who is lynched... more so than disinterested town would feel. So yeah, lurker leaning-anti town.
Another good opinion to have.
Nachomamma8 wrote:RayFrost wrote:
Sorry, I didn't know the # of votes on cojin, so I didn't vote him.
But the Cojin case didn't arrive until waaay after you killed the Pan wagon, and you didn't really do a whole lot to offer any substitute suspects before then.
Someone else noticed! We'll see what Panacea thinks of that...
@Acosmist: I'm not sure you understand me when I say the TownPan case. I'm referring to Ray's specific case in ISO 5, not the case for Pan being town in general.
The essentials of his case for her towniness are all public information, though. We don't have to take his word for Panacea's alignment in the games where she behaved in the ways he identified. Whatever motivation RayFrost had to make that case, it's based on facts out in the open, so there's no sense in which we have to take his word for it.
Depends on the type of lurking. EF's doesn't bother me at all because he's posting consistently, and he's posting content when he posts (usually). Later in the game, my mind may change about that but I hope that when there is more to talk about, he'll have more to say.
Everyone answer this, the varying opinions are good (diversity is strength! War is peace, etc.).
Panacea wrote:You and Ray debated this to death enough shortly thereafter, so I feel it unnecessary to re-visit. I do, however, agree with Ray about how mentioning that someone is leaning town isn't clearing them, and it's a mite extreme to accuse him of doing so.
Expressions like "a mite extreme" don't express much. I agree that Ray didn't clear all of the people he picked out as more or less townie, but the point is valid - 4 positive judgments, 2 of them strong, before the first negative judgment was rendered.
Oh, guys, come on. I'm not a total imbecile! I saved a couple of Ray's other scumtells for later. So far this was my first intensive meta, and I don't really think I like the practice much. But I can guess enough to know that inclusion of
all
of my observations can easily result in a meta-match.
Give me some credit, guys.
Reading that little gem of his again, I was struck by how defensive it sounds. What do you think? Note that I originally wanted to have your thoughts on it, and that was all I wanted - I saw a blip on the radar, thought I might be making a mountain out of a molehill, and wanted your opinion to correct a possible mistake.
And then Ray freaked out.
. A little bit. A slight freak-out. A mite extreme, isn't it?
But maybe I wasn't clear enough. I said he tends to
locate
scum early on, but he does it pretty privately (remember, entertaining everyone while he figures it out?). But nowhere did I say he finds scum in a handful of posts and calls them out the instant he does so. Better?
I should patent a Method for Calling Back to Previous Posts to Highlight Apparent Inconsistencies, comprising...
In my opinion, when Ray reads a Townie-role pm, he sees an opportunity to speak without the necessary filter of scumplay, and I feel his objective is to point out who scum is early on, make us laugh while he figures it out, and then get lynched for his candor or Killed for the threat he poses scum.
"his objective is to point out who scum is early on" - your words
How is locating scum privately the same as pointing out who scum is? Pointing out is an outward-directed, communicative activity.
Now, if you weren't clear enough, as you seem to think, then you must realize that this entire discussion was caused by the lack of clarity in your expression. These aren't my standards for recognizing a townie RayFrost, they're yours; I'm simply pointing out that your standard as stated does not speak well of RayFrost. Are you now saying you misspoke?
My judgment though isn't based solely on our previous play; I did spend quite a bit of time meta-ing the hell out of him. I feel that he is Town in this game. That's subject to change, of course. But your request that I meta him and report my findings
opened up the door
to calling him out for a meta-match (this, by the way, is part of the reason I'm developing a low opinion of meta). So Acosmist, I'm curious. You asked my findings. What were yours?
The way you stated your findings did not jibe with what's gone on in this thread. As we're finding out, that may be an artifact of a certain infelicity in your expression of your findings. Still, as you can imagine, I'm not going to let it just drop at that, and I want to press this to the hilt. If the rot extends beyond the words, I'd like to unearth it.
My findings: There is more than meets the eye about RayFrost in his games. He's Salvador Dali with a keen scumdar. It's easy to dismiss what he says, and, to be fair, he seems to have trouble building a coherent case, but he seems to have a decent hitrate. That's RayFrost as town. As scum, he plays up to the chaotic posting style. Where town RayFrost conceals insight behind madness, scum RayFrost uses misdirection merely to confuse. It's hard to tell the difference. It's certainly not such a profound difference that I thought your comments about his town behavior were accurate.
I concur here. I also perceived this as town-on-town. I know you both had good points, but while the argument became the center of the game, I think the beating of the dead horse threw us a bit off track.
I want very much to absolve myself of responsibility for any derailing, but, as I said before, it was a derail. The energy expended was not commensurate with the progress it produced. But certainly no one can use that argument as an excuse to lurk.
Lawls, that means you. :shakes fist:
Please let me know of anything at all that I missed?
If I think of anything I certainly will. I do have a question: do you understand how your meta of RayFrost led to quite a bit of this?
Shall I include the number for the DTV help desk?
Honestly, though. You meta'd me. Town OR scum, you have to know I'd have at least told y'all I would be back if I could get online at all.
Yeah, welcome back! Here are a few hundred words for you to read.
I really like this. I might incorporate this, but I think Acosmist would have a stroke.
I really despise multiple posting beyond the triple. I remember reading a game where a certain very annoying person would just post every ADHD-addled thought in his brain in a separate post. I'm pretty sure some entire pages of the thread were just his posts, so, at least 15 in a row. He was town and I couldn't help but think that his buffoonish rambling was a major cause of the mafia victory. I know I was tired of reading it...
Bridges is not that bad but he needs to stop giving me flashbacks.
Lawls wrote:I'll become more active when I'm being asked questions and when I feel the need to point out or say something.
I suppose the second conjunct just hasn't been true? Because questions have definitely been directed your way and you haven't answered them, so I know the first conjunct is true...
BridgesAndBaloons wrote:Lawls wrote:No I'm not waiting for something.
Could you elaborate on this?
You asked him if he was waiting for something...
Where are you going with this?
RayFrost wrote:The game has since finished with an uber awesome town win where scum were lynched D2 and then D3.
Thank you; I know if we had asked Lawls to tell us we'd be waiting for weeks.
