Newbie 922: Day 3

[Elementary Fermion]

the post seemed way out of character for him.

So you are "meta"-ing me now? Based on the previous two weeks, I guess? Essentially I have spent two weeks saying "I don't know why everyone keeps saying nothing over and over" and asking what the point was. Having abandoned hope, I figured I'd join in.

Is frustrated the same as bored stiff?

Woah. EF gives me the vibe that he's cautious with his voting, so when he says he's bored in the same post he believes he's pegged a scum, that sets my scumdar a-dinging.

I specifically mentioned that I would not change my vote without a good reason.

I am not going to change my vote. I voted once with firm conviction and I am standing by it. I am not going to be a 2d or 3d vote on someone and ignite a marathon of "EF is jumping on bandwagons defend yoruself (sic) scummy &c."

I didn't want to open myself to a barrage of questions that are both groundless and essentially unanswerable. So, cautiousness to avoid annoyances? Sure. Reading the volumes that this game has generated, with so little content among the chaff, I find to be boring; this doesn't change whether or not I feel that I have identified something suspicious about someone. So, in conclusion, I don't see why you think that this matters whatsoever. I guess I could have been more specific by saying "bored stiff because of the lengthy diatribes that don't really cover anything which populated this game since it started." That clear it up?

Also, for what it's worth, I posted my reasons for changing my vote when I so changed it. Why did you need to wait to be asked to do so?

Also, it's inconsistent with the tone of his post; if he was town, he would be angry at you for trying to get him, an innocent townie, killed. He would be angry, but definitely not "bored stiff".

I am sorry that I didn't make my anger even clearer. Although, since Panacea referred to it is a "meltdown" I think that at least some people figured it out.

Votecount
Lawls - 2 (Cojin, Acosmist)
Cojin - 2 (RayFrost, havingfitz)
Acosmist - 1 (Lawls)
Panacea - 1 (ElementaryFermion)
Elementary Fermion - 1 (Nachomamma)

Not Voting - 2 (Panacea, BridgesAndBaloons)

With 9 alive, it's 5 to lynch

[Nachomamma8]

So you are "meta"-ing me now? Based on the previous two weeks, I guess? Essentially I have spent two weeks saying "I don't know why everyone keeps saying nothing over and over" and asking what the point was. Having abandoned hope, I figured I'd join in.

No, I'm not meta'ing you. I'm calling you out for a sudden change in your posting style when put under a tiny bit of pressure, which is a characteristic move for panicking scum.

I specifically mentioned that I would not change my vote without a good reason.

Exactly. So, when you change your vote, one can assume you've found a good reason. And if you've found a good reason, then one could assume you've found a good reason to believe that the person whose vote you switched to was scum. And since the feeling of pegging scum is the greatest feeling in the world, one could most definitely you wouldn't be bored if you had pegged scum, unless that nonchalance was feigned.

with so little content among the chaff

If this is a complaint, then you have prods and questions and accusations to stir everything up.

I find to be boring; this doesn't change whether or not I feel that I have identified something suspicious about someone.

Then why not express suspicions? Why not accompany your suspicions with a vote?

Why did you need to wait to be asked to do so?

I like to do that sometimes. If someone just attacks a vote you've cast seemingly without any reason, there's a good chance they're scum. If you've had a town read on them for a while, and they follow your vote with little/no reasoning, you might want to rethink your town read. If they do nothing but question as Panacea did, then it's a bit of a null-tell, but it does show they're not believing that the vote is out of place.

I am sorry that I didn't make my anger even clearer.

That's not what I'm trying to say. I find it odd that anger and boredom mingle in the same post for you.

[Elementary Fermion]

Exactly. So, when you change your vote, one can assume you've found a good reason. And if you've found a good reason, then one could assume you've found a good reason to believe that the person whose vote you switched to was scum. And since the feeling of pegging scum is the greatest feeling in the world, one could most definitely you wouldn't be bored if you had pegged scum, unless that nonchalance was feigned. . . That's not what I'm trying to say. I find it odd that anger and boredom mingle in the same post for you.

I am sorry that I have still failed to make this clear. The "boredom" comment encompasses everything since the rules (which I failed to read apparently!) were posted. This persists, despite any temporary elation I may have felt while deciding Panacea's actions were scummy. It is a question of "ongoing" versus "temporary."

For what it is worth, our being all riled up is much more enjoyable than the previous nine (9) pages.

[Elementary Fermion]

Why did you need to wait to be asked to do so?

I like to do that sometimes. If someone just attacks a vote you've cast seemingly without any reason, there's a good chance they're scum. If you've had a town read on them for a while, and they follow your vote with little/no reasoning, you might want to rethink your town read. If they do nothing but question as Panacea did, then it's a bit of a null-tell, but it does show they're not believing that the vote is out of place.

I do not believe that I would ever do that, but I can see what you are saying. Thank you for answering this question; it broadens my understanding of others' approaches to this game.

[Panacea]

if he was town, he would be angry at you for trying to get him, an innocent townie, killed. He would be angry, but definitely not "bored stiff".

But I

didn't

try to get him killed. How can that even be read from the statement:

It's disrespectful as hell, and I would shed no tears if he modkilled you for the way you just said that.

"I

would

shed no tears

if

he modkilled you." I didn't say "Hey, mod, you should kill him!!" I said if he did (which, by the way, he has the right to do as mod of a player in violation of the listed rules), I wouldn't be too upset. Elementary's made it abundantly clear that he's not enjoying himself here. When he has posted (I'll not get into his activity), he's pretty much just complained about having to read and about being bored the whole time.

In anthropological terms, Elementary, you're suffering from naive realism, in which you feel the practices of the community you're being introduced to are substandard. It's affecting what you do or don't learn. This is Mafiascum.net. If you're so unhappy in this game that you're willing to whine about it all game, replace out before you get yourself modkilled for being so annoyingly bitter.

I specifically mentioned that I would not change my vote without a good reason.

But you didn't

have

a good reason. You pounced on an obvious misunderstanding (obvious because it's so exaggerated as to not even suit my words) in a manner that had me laughing more than the comedy I was watching when I read it.

[Elementary Fermion]

"I

would

shed no tears

if

he modkilled you." I didn't say "Hey, mod, you should kill him!!" I said if he did (which, by the way, he has the right to do as mod of a player in violation of the listed rules), I wouldn't be too upset.

Follow along:
1.) Town would be upset if they just lost one of their members in a manner which was not at all necessary.
2.) My being modkilled because I mentioned a documented problem and followed up in a non-diplomatic fashion would be not at all necessary. ("Justified under the rules" is different than "necessary" in this context; this type of death would have been easily avoidable and a waste of a role.)
3.) Panacea admits she

would

NOT however be upset

if

this were to happen.

Therefore. . . Panacea must not be town. QED. (And when I switched my vote to you, you got pretty defensive about it. Everyone, take note.)

Panacea, please respond to my question about if you were to accidentally cast a deciding vote on someone because you were misinformed about the number of votes.

Sorry to say, but you all have woken me up. Panacea, your point about the tomes of text to look back on in the future of this game was a good point. (Wish you could have made it much earlier, but I am on board now.)

And my surly style is exactly that; I am certain you could understand, having as chatty a style of your own as you do. (Pay attention all you future meta-ers!!)

[RayFrost]

x.x

w...t...f...

Although I do find EF's posting offensive, I don't find it scummy (I find it to be an attitude tell, not an alignment tell).

I find any votes on EF to be rather opportunistic (lookin' at you nacho), as I don't find disliking mafia / being obscenely rude to be a scumtell.

EF, if you don't find yourself enjoying the game, please replace out so we can have people that enjoy the game benefit from experiencing it (though you'll hopefully not be replaced by somebody that is IC/SE level... >.> otherwise this would be the newbie game that wasn't). As it is, your attitude is poor, which lessens the quantity of fun in the game.

oh, and before I forget,

FoS: Nacho

[Nachomamma8]

Thank you for answering this question; it broadens my understanding of others' approaches to this game.

Glad to be useful for a change.

But I didn't try to get him killed.

That's not the important part. The important part is what

he

thought, no?

I find any votes on EF to be rather opportunistic (lookin' at you nacho), as I don't find disliking mafia / being obscenely rude to be a scumtell.

Opportunistic how?

[RayFrost]

Opportunistic in that it gives a rather easy smokescreen to attack somebody without actually having solid backing behind it. smoke and mirrors, nacho, smoke and mirrors.

I actually find/found your vote on me to be more solid and to have more backing than your vote on RF, which makes the change seem like an attempt to jump onto a wave before it actually gets going.

[Panacea]

What if you yourself had put your vote on Lawls (instead of being still uncommitted after so long) believing you were only putting him at L-1, based on the published vote count, when in fact you ended up bring about his lynching and the end of the Day?

Sorry, I thought this was hypothetical. It wouldn't have happened. Mods make mistakes; they correct them when they do. Call me a foolish optimist, but I trust the system. All you had to do was:

Mod, I think there was an issue with the vote count.

You didn't have to be so impudent about it.

1.) Town would be upset if they just lost one of their members in a manner which was not at all necessary.
2.) My being modkilled because I mentioned a documented problem and followed up in a non-diplomatic fashion would be not at all necessary. ("Justified under the rules" is different than "necessary" in this context; this type of death would have been easily avoidable and a waste of a role.)
3.) Panacea admits she would NOT however be upset if this were to happen.

Therefore. . . Panacea must not be town.

-.- Panacea is town who absolutely adores this website and has endured your "MS is so disorganized, you all talk so much, on my other game we do it this way.." attitude all game. Forgive me if my win condition is being threatened by a definite longing to be short one player who's

clearly

unhappy with the game.

(And when I switched my vote to you, you got pretty defensive about it. Everyone, take note.)

Ummm... This is one of those moments where I wonder if I'm reading the same game. Your vote is based on misrepresentation.

And my surly style is exactly that; I am certain you could understand, having as chatty a style of your own as you do.

Sure, I can understand it. You won't make it here long with that attitude, but I can understand it.

[Nachomamma8]

Opportunistic in that it gives a rather easy smokescreen to attack somebody without actually having solid backing behind it. smoke and mirrors, nacho, smoke and mirrors.

Do you disagree with my points on him, then?

I actually find/found your vote on me to be more solid and to have more backing than your vote on RF, which makes the change seem like an attempt to jump onto a wave before it actually gets going.

Different votes suit different purposes. I found the way EF responded to a little pressure odd, so I applied a little more.

[RayFrost]

Yes, I disagree with your points.

No I can't say why right now.

That's cuz I have to go do some stuff.

[Panacea]

9 players are in this game.
2 players were involved in this little catalyst (Elementary and myself).
2 players more have offered their feedback (Nacho and RayFrost).
1 MOD has offered his opinion.

Where are the other 5 of you?

The mod's offered his insight before over half our players.

[havingfitz]

Insight into what exactly? Pardon if some of the discussions have not captured my attention. Was there a question somewhere you wanted me to answer? What opinion are you looking for?

[Acosmist]

Executive summary: I have a remarkable proof that havingfitz is wrong which this margin is too small to contain. Both Acosmist and Panacea now disagree with Panacea's meta of RayFrost, which bodes ill for the continued relevance of the discussion (and yet I continue it). Elementary Fermion becomes one of us and starts throwing unfounded (?) accusations around. Panacea manages to come out of the fray looking rather less pure than before. Nachomamma8 wins the Opportunist bonus, gets a Stale Moves penalty to go along with it. RayFrost calls him on it, then disappears (yay). Panacea's tear ducts empty; scandal ensues.

Havingfitz, would you care to explain a little more why this single reason you gave justified this switch?

While he's doing that, what do you think of his case against Cojin, my replies, his replies, etc. in light of this vote switch?

First off, let me say that currently I am about dead-even between Lawls and Cojin. On one hand, I feel the Cojin case to have quite a bit of substance for maliciousness.

I disagree, as you've noticed in my back-and-forth with havingfitz.

On the other, Lawls

has

been acting in a manner harmful to town.

Do you infer that he's mafia from that, or do you infer that he has to go anyway? I don't think the math favors lynching a townie unless the harm he does is pretty severe.

Sigh. Panacea finds it questionable. I'll give you that. I'll await his explanation before reading too terribly much much into it, but I will do so.

Did he ever explain that?

Elaborated as such, I can accept this point. I was questioning it as a potential tactic to discredit him, which is why I visited it.

Note that this line of inquiry is just as much about you as it is about RayFrost. I wanted mutual metas not only to get reads on those meta'd, but on those doing the meta'ing (I am loving meta! Loving it!). While I think tallying his judgments has little value to discredit RayFrost, it did serve to discredit your meta on him

as stated

. Now, from there, I have to evaluate whether you misspoke due to a poor choice of words or due to some more sinister motivation.

Given his history, no, I wouldn't say it was overly defensive. Mainly because I can see his point on meta-ing, and how it's too easy to match a meta (or a meta-newb player's notation of a meta). Where as I've learned in this game it works if you do it correctly, it's a delicate art. If you fail, you fail hard. I don't particularly like the risks of doing it incorrectly.

What I didn't like about his defensiveness was how it was directed at me when I was just pushing the logic of your meta to its natural extension. If, as some have theorized (what seems like ages ago now!), you and RayFrost are too friendly to calibrate your scumdar on each other properly, the fact that he railed at

me

instead of at

you

feeds the narrative that RayFrost doesn't have the heart to go after you.

I think I have an idea of the communication breakdown (Led Zep fans at the table? ) here, and if I'm correct here, I can see where this would be my fault. I should have had more insight here, and I apologize: What is your idea of "early on" as I've stated it? (I hope you'll forgive me for hearing your answer first? Gotta be careful, y'see.)

I get the sense that you strongly disagree with me here, but you're still being apologetic about what you think is largely my mistake. I also think it is highly unlikely you intentionally did that to match a meta, as it's very subtle how tolerant you're being. Interesting.

Onto the substance: "Early on" is a vague predicate. I don't think you meant that RayFrost would call out scum in his first post, but I do think that the number of positive judgments that occurred before a negative judgment tells in favor of denying that RayFrost was pointing out scum early on. If he'd made helpful but non-alignment-related posts, then came out with the judgment against Cojin (I think Cojin was the one he called out first?), I'd give more him more leeway. I think that the time that had passed since RayFrost entered the game was sufficient for it to be past the initial stages; then, the first few content-filled posts of his made innocent judgments or no judgments at all; that having been done, RayFrost's "early on" content was locked-in. And that early content was not supportive of a positive judgment using your logic.

(First, LOVE the bolded; it's perfect!) Maybe I should try to be less concise in my metas in future, and follow more of this guideline. I just feel that the way I did it gives too much away. If that is the case, Ray, I apologize. Meta-ing Ray (since, as I've said, I feel that if I was 5784974 times better at MS and wittier, I'd play like RayFrost), I would see his avatar and try to imagine what I'd say in his position as scum and what I'd say as town. The amount of times it'd hit correctly was enough to lead me to conclude that in this very delicate situation, I'd have a decent gut-feel for Ray's alignment. Maybe that was a bad idea, I don't know. But the way we play lends itself to this meta-tactic, I believe.

So your gut says he's town, and your gut has a good hitrate (at least with RayFrost)? I just want that clarified.

I'll need that answer first, but in the meantime, have I mentioned that I'm rapidly losing respect for meta?

You're losing respect already? We have no dead players yet.

I totally think I know who you're talking about, if it was an MS player. Should I ever receive him in a modlist for a game, I will modkill him. No lie.

This was a different site, but it's not impossible that it's the same guy. I sort of doubt it, though. Anyway, I can't stand that kind of behavior.

I don't like it at all. He's reminded us a few times that he's a newbie, which don't like as a rule, and it always seems he posts just enough to be trailing along without committing too far and then skipping away. It sets off my scumdar, but I'll check him out more after the Night's events.

I know this opinion has changed a bit because of recent events...but it's good to have an opinion on paper before it becomes such a hot topic.

Let me see what I can do with this. When I made newbie references, the following is what I was trying to articulate:

[Lots of points]

So, there that is. I apologize for my being previously inarticulate. I will try to correct the same in the future.

It's not impossible that things will make more sense as the game progresses. As for my part in making the content runneth over, I am intolerant of badly-argued cases, and I am calling people on them.

But if (and, I am willing to bet, when) we lynch a townie this first Day, I fear it will be because we were essentially bludgeoned into doing so by one of the players who talks and talks and talks without saying anything. It could happen innocently, to be sure, but I predict that is how it plays out. And, should I be shown to be wrong, I will gladly eat my words. Winning is better than being a correct pessimist.

Numbers say we will lynch a townie, sure. The road to the day 1 lynch is going to be strewn with clues, though, and it'll be our task in day 2 to see what can be made of what happened. If things go wrong (we lynch a townie), we'll investigate why they did. If they go right, we'll hold off celebrating until we get the second scum. Whatever happens, that colossal fog of ignorance that wraps day 1 will thin as the days progress, as more becomes public, and eventually, if we try hard enough, we will be able to see through to victory. Right now, the blind stumbling and the false leads are overwhelming, and I know it's a pain to keep up sometimes. Things will improve!

I did not enter this game believing that it should take 500 posts to lynch someone the first day; obviously some of you did. If your experience has conclusively shown that your way is correct and mine is naïve at best, please enlighten me.

As inexperienced as I am, I will say that the more posting, the better for the town. There will always be a lot of chaff to sift, but each post increases the odds that necessary evidence will be out there.

This post will be the last time that I will mention these topics, however. I will do my best to abandon my idea of contributing when there is something to be said, and start posting, frequently (to make everyone happy!), whenever I think someone else took the time to type something unhelpful.

Wooooooooo~

most likely after the first night if im still alive

That is just not acceptable at all.

No I don't anticipate being nk'd. There are no real reasons why I should be nk'd.
I do think that I will be lynched this day. The case against me is pretty strong, but its just the way I play

The case is strong? I thought so, too, but you agree! All...right.

Damb Acosmist...that was was a painfully long post. I’ll refrain from the embedded bold responses since that would really make this reply confusing.

I appreciate it.

I am not a fan is correct. How does your defense of Cojin exhibit reluctance?

There you go again, arguing with the summary.

I said why my defense is reluctant. There are non-scummy reasons for Cojin to be posting as he does. There are scummy reasons as well. I don't want to ride to his defense and posit all the non-scummy reasons, because he may not be innocent. Further, it's really a person's task to defend himself. Cojin should tell us what he meant by things and defuse the attacks on him himself. Even so, those attacks have not been argued well and I'm ready to dissect them. So, I see attacks on Cojin that are wrongheaded, so I defend him, but it'd be ideal for him to provide some explanatory notes and defenses himself, so my defense is reluctant.

Where I got it from makes no difference. It was at the beginning of your post and was criticized where it stood. Regardless of where your “isn’t as scummy as havingfitz thinks” was in your post my reply would still be the same.

You seem to have trouble understanding the summary. I'm going to back away from caring.

I am in agreement with Cojin that Lawls is scummy.

Detente! Excellent.

I’m the source of the meaning?

Yes, you are, because Cojin never exhibited the contradiction you seem to think he did. Panacea expressed an opinion about L-3 that was belied by her subsequent actions. Cojin called her on this anomaly. Cojin never took a stand on whether Panacea's opinion was good or bad; he took a stand against the contradiction between her statement and her action. What Cojin actually thought about L-3 or L-2 was not revealed

until he expressed shock that so many votes accumulated on Panacea

. Nothing he did before or has done since has contradicted that attitude.

WTF? Would you say a large part of this game is to interpret the actions and comment’s of other players? For me the answer is yes and that is what I am doing with Cojin. So yes I am the source of the meaning as it is my interpretation of Cojin’s words and actions.

Your interpretation depends on reading Cojin's mind.

He didn’t exclaim when people (Lawls and EF) were put at L-3 by Pan but did when she was put at L-3 (actually L-2) by Edprata.

As I said, he's not estopped from ever expressing shock at L-3 or L-2 situations just because he didn't before.

I see an inconsistency with the way he treated both situation. He called Pan out for her behavior and then basically did the same thing he called her out on.

No, he certainly did not. Panacea made a categorical statement about L-3, then acted in a way contrary to that statement. Here's what Cojin said (emphasis mine):

Wow have we seriously put

her

at l3 already?

Cojin did not express shock that we put anyone at L-3, but that we put Panacea at L-3. That should warn you against leaping to the conclusion that Cojin thinks all L-3 situations at that point are bad. Maybe it was something about the Panacea case that shocked him. That'd be a pretty common opinion - more than one of us has pointed out that the case against her was garbage.

Is my interpretation of Cojin correct? I don't know. But it's at least as plausible as yours. The doubt I retain in my mind is something I don't see in your case, although the attitudes you ascribe to him are just as doubtful.

Uh...I read Cojin’s posts fine. His ISO 2 and 3 posts were cr@p and he still hasn’t answered my questions.

Nope. You misread the grammar, which he corrected in the next post. You haven't been reading carefully. You accused him of not paying attention; well, tu quoque.

I’m not dismissing anything. If anything I am doing the opposite of dismiss in regards to Cojin’s gameplay so far. Are you dismissing his play?

You're dismissing his points when they aren't expressed in the more coherent way. I decoded the gibberish; now you can't ignore his points. Continuing to dismiss them because he's not the best writer is wrong.

Well...considering Cojin quotes me and paraphrases me in his assessment/vote of Lawls...no, I don’t disagree. I’m just not as impressed with his scumhunting efforts towards Lawls as you are.

I am not nominating him for the Scumhunting Navy Cross or anything.

So in summary...if Cojin does something positive he gets a point, but if he does something scummy like spread a misconception...just gloss over it?

Uh, no. If he does something positive, he gets a point. If he does something scummy, we don't put our fingers in our ears and pretend the positive thing never happened.

Don't misrepresent me. That's a massive, massive warning sign for me.

I disagree...him responding to a question by reiterating minor accusations he took from someone else is not applying pressure. It’s weak participation.

Pretty sure Cojin had original thoughts about Lawls.

Call away. My opinion is that if he isn’t making sense (and his ISO post is...once again...cr @p) he’s talking gibberish and not bringing anything to the game.

I translated what he said. It's time to stop hiding behind the gibberish canard.

Elementary, your post gives me a feeling you're frustrated town. Would you agree?

I got that impression too...

I will agree with you here. I'm usually not one for such immense walls of text; the occasional, sure, but I'm alarmed by how they seem to keep getting longer and longer with no way of cutting out what I've got. You'll notice that a lot of it's an ongoing discussion between two players. I will ask that in D2, we all try to avoid this.

I have a few issues with this.

You, RayFrost, havingfitz, and I have been the ones most deeply involved in the "walls of text." You and I have gone back and forth, RayFrost and I have gone back and forth, and havingfitz and I have gone back and forth. There are more than two people doing this. Further, the walls of text have addressed other players as well. Havingfitz and I pressed Lawls for a while. He's on Cojin. I've questioned Cojin. Even before this post of yours, where you and EF start going at it, you've carried on extended discussions.

I am not going to stop putting a lot of effort into analyzing the game. I am trying to get all my points into the executive summary so that a person can quickly read what are my conclusions. If a person wants to take issue with a conclusion, he can browse the "immense wall of text" and find my supporting arguments. I don't think the long posts are a per se barrier to active participation.

It's disrespectful as hell, and I would shed no tears if he modkilled you for the way you just said that.

No tears? None at all?

I think too much of this discussion is public. EF may have started it by posting a public complaint, but we really didn't have to perpetuate the ugliness, and "He did it first!" is not a valid excuse. Mutual respect, guys?

If he is scum (and I don't like that you're so adamant that our D1 lynch won't be), the interaction will possibly grant insight to his scumbuddy.

I think "Elementary Fermion" has a math background.

But since scum havena't had but a short amount of time to plan things in pre-game (oh, wait. This pre-game was a bit long...), this is a good place to come back to later once one scummy is dead and we're trying to find a buddy. Does that make sense?

How many people have been replaced? That's sort of relevant. And may work against this kind of pattern detection.

This here is killer to me. No townie who embraces any sort of a desire to win this game would wish for the arbitrary modkilling of a fellow townie--especially for nothing more than the raising of a serious, and well documented, concern about the mechanics of the game in the genuine hope of correcting it. What if you yourself had put your vote on Lawls (instead of being

still

uncommitted after so long) believing you were only putting him at L-1, based on the published vote count, when in fact you ended up bring about his lynching and the end of the Day?

There are really two points here. The possible motivation of Panacea to see someone modkilled is one; I guess that becomes an issue, so I'll come back to it. The problems with the vote leading to uninformed voting, and perhaps lynching, are legit - and EF was the guy who pointed this out. I had no idea until he said something, and then asked the mod if the count was correct. So, EF's been paying attention better than any of us to

something

.

I think what Acosmist is saying is that getting something wrong (innocently) does not change the fact you got something right earlier.

[many words]

If Cojin leads us to a correct lynch, but only because it was his partner and not because of his analysis, then his point in retrospect was not deserved at all. This I believe to be the point Acosmist was making.

Yes. You get it! Perhaps havingfitz thought my explanation was gibberish, and thus of no relevance.

Unvote, Vote: Elementary Fermion

Vote first, pretext later, right?

Whoa, Elementary, you need to calm yourself down. NO WHERE did I say I wanted a townie dead.

You did say you would shed no tears. Total indifference?

Personally, I'm reading Elementary's meltdown as (again) frustrated town, albeit postal, irritable town. Nacho, what makes you think it's not?

Postal? :/

Anyway, I read it as frustrated town as well. And what pretext did Nacho come up with...

First off, that huge post when real suspicion was put on him. No pressure had been put on him beforehand, and the post seemed way out of character for him.

Not all of us can be Lawls and stay snugly out of sight when suspicion descends on us.

Second of all, this.

Woah. EF gives me the vibe that he's cautious with his voting, so when he says he's bored in the same post he believes he's pegged a scum, that sets my scumdar a-dinging. Also, it's inconsistent with the tone of his post; if he was town, he would be angry at you for trying to get him, an innocent townie, killed. He would be angry, but definitely not "bored stiff".

Angry like:

This all as it may be, the embracing what could be an opportunistic death of a townie for no justifiable reason is far beyond the scum vibes that Lawls puts out. I said I wouldn't change my vote on Lawls until I had a reason, and since I now do, I hereby

Unvote

and

Vote: Panacea

That?

Sweet...4 bandwagons. If Pan or Bridges votes for the other we can get up to 5. Thats a convoy!

*sings*

I am sorry that I didn't make my anger even clearer. Although, since Panacea referred to it is a "meltdown" I think that at least some people figured it out.

Some of us did!

I

would

shed no tears

if

he modkilled you." I didn't say "Hey, mod, you should kill him!!" I said if he did (which, by the way, he has the right to do as mod of a player in violation of the listed rules), I wouldn't be too upset. Elementary's made it abundantly clear that he's not enjoying himself here. When he has posted (I'll not get into his activity), he's pretty much just complained about having to read and about being bored the whole time.

Would you shed no tears because it wouldn't be a loss to EF, as he's bored? What about the impact on your win condition?

naive realism

:/ "I do not think it means what you think it means."

But you didn't

have

a good reason. You pounced on an obvious misunderstanding (obvious because it's so exaggerated as to not even suit my words) in a manner that had me laughing more than the comedy I was watching when I read it.

In legal writing, they teach people to avoid using words like "clearly" because they just conceal an inability to argue the point. If something really is clear, it doesn't need to be pointed out that it's clear. We get that the sky is blue. That's clear. What an attorney usually means when he says that something is "clear" is that it's not clear and an entire week of searching Westlaw didn't find him the right case to prove his point.

That's my reaction to your "obvious".

Follow along:
1.) Town would be upset if they just lost one of their members in a manner which was not at all necessary.
2.) My being modkilled because I mentioned a documented problem and followed up in a non-diplomatic fashion would be not at all necessary. ("Justified under the rules" is different than "necessary" in this context; this type of death would have been easily avoidable and a waste of a role.)
3.) Panacea admits she

would

NOT however be upset

if

this were to happen.

Therefore. . . Panacea must not be town. QED.

This.

I find any votes on EF to be rather opportunistic (lookin' at you nacho), as I don't find disliking mafia / being obscenely rude to be a scumtell.

EF, if you don't find yourself enjoying the game, please replace out so we can have people that enjoy the game benefit from experiencing it (though you'll hopefully not be replaced by somebody that is IC/SE level... >.> otherwise this would be the newbie game that wasn't). As it is, your attitude is poor, which lessens the quantity of fun in the game.

oh, and before I forget,

FoS: Nacho

Much like Frampton, RayFrost comes alive!

Opportunistic in that it gives a rather easy smokescreen to attack somebody without actually having solid backing behind it. smoke and mirrors, nacho, smoke and mirrors.

I agree that this is too easy a time to attack EF, and more justification than "Vote" and later "Oh yeah, here are some pretexts" is needed.

Forgive me if my win condition is being threatened by a definite longing to be short one player who's

clearly

unhappy with the game.

...you said "clearly"

;_;

Note that EF actually seems to be posting with gusto now, so your criticism is untimely.

Ummm... This is one of those moments where I wonder if I'm reading the same game. Your vote is based on misrepresentation.

He just outlined the logic, and it checks out.

Yes, I disagree with your points.

No I can't say why right now.

That's cuz I have to go do some stuff.

Eagerly awaiting this.

Where are the other 5 of you?

The mod's offered his insight before over half our players.

Where are Lawls and Cojin?

[Acosmist]

I am going to double-post. We are four days from a deadline. Lawls is...what he is, and any points addressed to him will probably have to be expressed now in order to get an answer from him.

Experienced players can correct me if I'm wrong, but I really think we need to add discussion of lynch finalizations to all the other discussions going on. With varying timezones and such, it's best we get this stuff going now rather than tomorrow, or Friday.

[Panacea]

Oh my... dear God... I have forty-five minutes. Can I do this..? Forgive me if I cut off about halfway through?

No offense, but I really don't like the flavor of this particular game. Just a side note. We need to lighten up.

@ Havingfitz: We got two new votes in a short period of time there. Just thought you'd all have something to say about it.

On the other, Lawls has been acting in a manner harmful to town.

Do you infer that he's mafia from that, or do you infer that he has to go anyway? I don't think the math favors lynching a townie unless the harm he does is pretty severe.

Except for the tentative RV's of which I've taken part, I tend to play my votes close to my chest. If, one day from deadline we have some sort of a breakeven between the two primary candidates (well, at the time I said that), those would be the justifications for giving a vote of which I'm not particularly confident. The pro-Lawls-lynch says he's not being too terribly helpful, and we might all just regret not lynching him later. If it's got to be

somebody

, I might choose that route. I don't know yet.

Well, just a sec. In my last game, Thesp argued that a player with a vote left by the end of the Day would do best to cast it somewhere to move the game. He had some pretty good points. Later I learned he was scum... I should ask him about that.

the fact that he railed at me instead of at you feeds the narrative that RayFrost doesn't have the heart to go after you.

Did he, though? His first post after my observations of his play was a joke about how he could easily match his meta. I mean, I think he addressed it, but just a little less strongly, because he (correctly) judged that I could already figure out as much on my own. You were more vocal, so he was more vocal, boiled down. That's how I see it, anyway.

I think I have an idea of the communication breakdown (Led Zep fans at the table? Very Happy) here, and if I'm correct here, I can see where this would be my fault. I should have had more insight here, and I apologize: What is your idea of "early on" as I've stated it? (I hope you'll forgive me for hearing your answer first? Gotta be careful, y'see.)

I get the sense that you strongly disagree with me here, but you're still being apologetic about what you think is largely my mistake. I also think it is highly unlikely you intentionally did that to match a meta, as it's very subtle how tolerant you're being. Interesting.

No, I just think I see what the problem is now. I'm sorry: I'm just (annoyingly, as I've been told) polite to a fault. I do think the mistake was mine. "Early on" in my context had a broader meaning: D1, to be exact. Let's say Ray is lynched Today/ NK'ed Tonight. I would not be surprised if later in the game it was revealed that one or both of the scum were outed by Ray Today. It just happens that way.

So your gut says he's town, and your gut has a good hitrate (at least with RayFrost)? I just want that clarified.

Grr.

Yes,

I suppose that's a correct statement. (

DISLIKE

meta!)

You're losing respect [for meta] already? We have no dead players yet.

No, for the problems it can present. I've stated I believe Ray is town; I feel like if he had a scumhunting strategy, I could have jeopardized it.

K, I'll take this back up later. Dinner time!

[Acosmist]

Oh my... dear God... I have forty-five minutes. Can I do this..? Forgive me if I cut off about halfway through?

I demand all my points be answered! Now!

Naw, take your time.

No offense, but I really don't like the flavor of this particular game. Just a side note. We need to lighten up.

How about this:

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls... Dyin' time's here.

Listen all! This is the truth of it. Fighting leads to killing, and killing gets to warring. And that was damn near the death of us all. Look at us now! Busted up, and everyone talking about hard rain! But we've learned, by the dust of them all... Bartertown learned. Now, when men get to fighting, it happens here! And it finishes here! Two men enter; one man leaves.

Except for the tentative RV's of which I've taken part, I tend to play my votes close to my chest. If, one day from deadline we have some sort of a breakeven between the two primary candidates (well, at the time I said that), those would be the justifications for giving a vote of which I'm not particularly confident. The pro-Lawls-lynch says he's not being too terribly helpful, and we might all just regret not lynching him later. If it's got to be

somebody

, I might choose that route. I don't know yet.

Well, you said Lawls had been acting contrary to the town's interests. Do you infer he's mafia from that? That's what I want cleared up.

Well, just a sec. In my last game, Thesp argued that a player with a vote left by the end of the Day would do best to cast it somewhere to move the game. He had some pretty good points. Later I learned he was scum... I should ask him about that.

Is this comment directed at anyone in particular? It reads as if you're thinking out loud.

Did he, though? His first post after my observations of his play was a joke about how he could easily match his meta. I mean, I think he addressed it, but just a little less strongly, because he (correctly) judged that I could already figure out as much on my own. You were more vocal, so he was more vocal, boiled down. That's how I see it, anyway.

Here is the post I was referencing:

unvote, FoS: cojin

because I'm way too lazy to check the vote count

Calling someone out post-Panacea...hm....thoughts, Ms. Panacea?

You mean it

isn't

obvious that I was going "WATCH ME ATTEMPT TO PERFECTLY MATCH THE META THAT PANACEA PUT FORTH IN SUCH AN OBVIOUS AND DELIBERATE FASHION THAT IT IS RIDICULOUS" in those posts?

Also, if you are going to ask somebody else their thoughts, you better be prepared to share your own.

What do

you

think about it, bub?

Just askin'.

No, I just think I see what the problem is now. I'm sorry: I'm just (annoyingly, as I've been told) polite to a fault. I do think the mistake was mine. "Early on" in my context had a broader meaning: D1, to be exact. Let's say Ray is lynched Today/ NK'ed Tonight. I would not be surprised if later in the game it was revealed that one or both of the scum were outed by Ray Today. It just happens that way.

"Day 1" is a precise predicate! You could have just said that. All right.

Grr.

Yes,

I suppose that's a correct statement. (

DISLIKE

meta!)

What do you dislike about it? Like I said, there are two sides to it...

No, for the problems it can present. I've stated I believe Ray is town; I feel like if he had a scumhunting strategy, I could have jeopardized it.

Not sure what the danger is - scum will avoid being called out by RayFrost?

[Elementary Fermion]

No offense, but I really don't like the flavor of this particular game. Just a side note. We need to lighten up.

Yeah that's partly my fault. And I apologize. Genuinely and sincerely.

Acosmist is right (though I am not going to re-scour his post to find the specific language): I am trying to post more frequently and constructively.

So, Panacea, I take back my hostile words and would like the timbre of this game to improve. I will do my part.

Anyway, today has been crazy busy, but I will try to respond to Acosmist's and Panacea's points later tonight or tomorrow morning.

[Acosmist]

Frampton comes alive? No one? Are you all kids or something?

[Cojin]

V/LA due to being not of state of mind to post (st pattys day)

[BridgesAndBaloons]

*The (very slightly) occasional IC tip that actually comes through is as profound as "do not self-hammer" and "link to your previous posts if necessary."

While both of those seem really trivial, following them is really important to be an adequate player. You'll find that most of the learning will happen AFTER the game. Once all roles are revealed we discuss what moves scum made, why they made them, what bad moves town made, what they should have done instead, what good moves town made, etc. So, stick around until after the game to get the real learning from a newbie game. Plus, the experience itself with people who know how mafiascum works helps.

Please, for the love of God, explain to me in clear and concise terms how three weeks of “lurking,” “scumdar,” and “answer me” work. Show me a positive end result, and I will be receptive to the concepts so employed.

As I explained earlier, no matter what happens day 1, as long as content is generated, it helps us find scum the NEXT day. Say we lynch a lurker today and they come up scum. We can see if anyone was trying to avoid the lynch or if anyone attacked them in a way that seemed like bussing.

[BridgesAndBaloons]

Oh, and happy scumday, Bridges!!

Thanks!

Unvote, Vote: Elementary Fermion

vote: nacho

MORE to come later including an explanation of my vote. Still not entirely caught up to thread, life is busy but spring break starts Friday and I will have lots of time then.

[Panacea]

Pan: "Oh my God... He replied before I could finish responding to the

first

set..!"

Side note: Did anyone else have to seriously fight the urge to quote Acosmist's

entire

first post..? Just to be a prat?

Frampton comes alive? No one? Are you all kids or something?

Nineteen, but I do know the reference. "Don't stand alone; you might turn to stone. I wish there was a pill for that; you're on your own." There were a lot (let me repeat a

lot

) of other things that needed my attention.

You, RayFrost, havingfitz, and I have been the ones most deeply involved in the "walls of text." You and I have gone back and forth, RayFrost and I have gone back and forth, and havingfitz and I have gone back and forth. There are more than two people doing this. Further, the walls of text have addressed other players as well.

I'm sorry. Big surprise, but that was another bad wording on my part. (English major.

Freshman

English major. ^^*) I mean these walls of text tend to be between two players

at a time

. As long as we're turning over new leaves, I promise to hereafter devote a lot more time to making sure the messages I'm sending can be received with no trouble.

Furthermore, I think text WALLS should be kept at a lower number; if only because I think our lurkers are getting by quite easily between them.

Speaking of,

Cojin,

WHERE IS YOUR DANGED AVI???

No tears? None at all?

Meh, okay, so a little... Once my Defend-MS.net-at-All-Costs reflex faded a bit, I realized I lost my temper and was a bit harsh. Sorry, Elementary.

You did say you would shed no tears. Total indifference?

No, not total indifference. I've mentioned before that I put a large value on enjoying the game. Why would anyone want to play if it was all serious? Ha ha, when I was scum last game, I convinced my buddy to keep a player around on the pretext of how much fun he was.

Would you shed no tears because it wouldn't be a loss to EF, as he's bored? What about the impact on your win condition?

I'm one of those "If you can't respect what the Romans do, get yer scrawny tail out of Rome" people. Elementary's previous attitude, in my opinion, was threatening my win condition.

(For the record, I'm not sold on Nacho's points. I stand by my aggravated town sentiment from earlier. I think that question was asked somewhere in the... well, in Acosmist's post. )

:/ "I do not think [naive realism] means what you think it means."

Anthropology midterm was today. From my textbook, wherein the traveling anthropologist can be compared to the wandering Mafia player:

"

Naive realism

is the belief that people everywhere see the world the same way... If an ethnographer fails to control his or her own naive realism, inside cultural meanings will certainly be overlooked."

In legal writing, they teach people to avoid using words like "clearly" because they just conceal an inability to argue the point. If something really is clear, it doesn't need to be pointed out that it's clear. We get that the sky is blue. That's clear. What an attorney usually means when he says that something is "clear" is that it's not clear and an entire week of searching Westlaw didn't find him the right case to prove his point.

Noted, with the understanding that I rebel at the notion of word taboo.

He just outlined the logic, and it checks out.

I fail to see his point. If I'd expressed a

desire

to see him killed before Phate caught on, maybe. But I was expressing a potential response to the situation

after the fact

, should he be modkilled. I anticipated the Mod's leniency (owing to the fact nicety to newbies seems to trump mod rights in the newbie threads). But I wouldn't take it to the list mod if he hadn't granted a pardon. *shrug*

Whew. I need a break. Acosmist, please please please do not reply before I finish?

[Acosmist]

Anthropology midterm was today. From my textbook, wherein the traveling anthropologist can be compared to the wandering Mafia player:

"

Naive realism

is the belief that people everywhere see the world the same way... If an ethnographer fails to control his or her own naive realism, inside cultural meanings will certainly be overlooked."

Oh, anthropologists didn't understand what that term meant, then. Not your fault.

Whoever stole that concept from philosophy completely misunderstood what it meant...that's...infuriating.