mini 943- Greek Mythology! (And the winner is... ?)

[Iecerint]

Actually, you're voting SD for his diceroll, but that's neither here nor there.

Please formalize the basis for your belief that my response is "tense" and/or "restrained." Sounds like bullshit, etc.

Yeah, I found his tone to be a little off. For example:

I think random stage is over. Tell me, what is your reason to vote Iec?

This came off as quite brusque to me, so I assumed that this sort of thing was the real cause of the suspicion. The content itself is pretty unobjectionable IMO. I don't think you'd have complained about it had the tone been different.

If you think the content is actually scummy for some reason, please elaborate.

Vote Count

Shadow Dancer- Plum, Jack, VasudeVa, greenindirt (L-3)
MindGamer- Flava Flave (L-5)
VasudeVa- Bio Hazard (L-6)
Plum- Johoohno (L-6)
Johoohno- Mindgamer, Iecerint (L-5)
Iecerint- Snow_Bunny (L-6)
Snow_Bunny- Shadow Dancer (L-6)

With 12 alive, its 7 to lynch.

[Jack]

This came off as quite brusque to me

Please formalize this, sounds like bull****, etc

I would be the one to know why I'm voting him right? I just said what content I found suspicious in the last post, the one you are responding too.

[Iecerint]

OK. His language implies that SB's vote for me was SERIOUS BUSINESS, whereas that was not really the case. The effect is achieved by use of few words, imperative mood, and simple sentence structure. That's what I mean by "brusque."

The point of my question was that that impression may be artifactual of English not being his first language.

You voted him because of his diceroll. I know this because I can read you in iso, find your votepost, and read your explanation. If your reason has privately evolved, that's fine, but you shouldn't use my ignorance of that as basis that I slyly claimed people voted him for tone rather than content.

I want you to elaborate on why it's scummy rather than merely identifying it as scummy. What the hell is wrong with pointing out that his action generated discussion? It looks sheepish to me, but not scummy.

[Iecerint]

(Please similarly (or analogously) indicate why my post was "tense" and/or "restrained.")

[Jack]

OK. His language implies that SB's vote for me was SERIOUS BUSINESS, whereas that was not really the case. The effect is achieved by use of few words, imperative mood, and simple sentence structure. That's what I mean by "brusque."

The point of my question was that that impression may be artifactual of English not being his first language.

I see. That is scummy. But not because it's brusque, but because it's a dumb vote (snow bunny was clearly doing a random vote, and it isn't suspicious to random vote on your first post). And he's the

last

person who should be jumping on someone for random voting. It's way out of wack with his dice vote.

You know, this is exactly what I had a feeling you were driving at with the language thing. You were trying to pass off something that's legitimately scummy as just poor tone.

With plums rvs vote, he's at 4 votes. I can see this as a "save my partner" attempt. It was subtle, too.

You voted him because of his diceroll. I know this because I can read you in iso, find your votepost, and read your explanation. If your reason has privately evolved, that's fine, but you shouldn't use my ignorance of that as basis that I slyly claimed people voted him for tone rather than content.

It hasn't privately evolved. I quoted a bit of his post that I found scummy, and urged another player to vote him for non-diceroll reasons. And if you thought that I was voting him for the diceroll, then I would hardly be voting him for tone, would I? Who

was

voting him for tone?

I want you to elaborate on why it's scummy rather than merely identifying it as scummy. What the hell is wrong with pointing out that his action generated discussion? It looks sheepish to me, but not scummy.

Scum, when pressed on their reasons to do something, like to cling to "but it generated discussion". This sidesteps the actual things they said, and puts a pro town spin on the results.

[greenindirt]

(Please similarly (or analogously) indicate why my post was "tense" and/or "restrained.")

I don't have the time nor energy to do show examples right now, but the "tone" or your post does come off as slightly defensive and tense. Of course this can be hard to discern because, it's text, and everyone has different ways of explaining things and writing. I'm just saying that your posts can come off as tense, not that they are.

[Jack]

(Please similarly (or analogously) indicate why my post was "tense" and/or "restrained.")

This is fairly pointless, since it's a gut thing. The other people either see it or that don't.

It sounds tense and restrained because you painstakingly go through your defense step by step, even though my accusation

should

be kind of bizarre to you. I think if you were town, had told the truth about the pm etc, my accusation would have come out of left field. That half of it is paranoid and grasping, if I may say so. I was picking up on something I saw and pushing it. But you "don't blame me for finding the timing a little suspicious".

[Jack]

I would not be at all surprised if we have two scum here.

1) iec votes SD
2) gets pm, unvotes, says he doesn't have pm yet. Maybe he checked SD's meta and found he draws votes easy? Possible.
3) see's SD with 4 votes, bandwagon building
4) notices a very scummy comment that SD made, tries to plant the seeds of "it's just his brusque tone" in case that gets pointed out.

You're correct that I am trying to learn more about SD on account of the increased scrutiny.

Where exactly did Johoono say that? It sounds to me like he isn't saying anything like that.

[Iecerint]

He voted because you specifically told him to make a non-diceroll vote. If you want to damn him for lack of creativity, fine, but it's irresponsible of you to ask him to non-diceroll vote and then whine about his choice. Dumb, not scummy.

To be honest, I was thinking mainly about my own perception of his post, but the voter that most came to mind was GiD. His was the vote that escalated the situation and prompted me to address the situation.

I don't think I have noticed a difference in scum saying "it generated discussion" and annoyingmeta-town saying "it generated discussion."

[Iecerint]

fine @ tense/restrained. I asked because scum sometimes make nonspecific claims like that for rhetorical effect. If you couldn't explain well, it would imply that that sort of situation might be in play. But your response is fine as far as that is concerned.

I didn't "plant the seed" of "brusque tone;" you requested it. If I planted said seed, it was after the cogs were already in motion.

If you're claiming that said "planting" was me asking whether English was his second language, then you are indeed horribly paranoid.

I've already answered your last question when GiD asked it. Check the previous page.

[Iecerint]

I'll wait until SD gets back before I do anything else with Jack, unless it is new content. He's re-asking old questions at this point, so I doubt things will progress much beyond here regardless of his alignment, and the fact that he has repeated already-addressed "problem area" questions means that he can't get much sneakier from a rhetorical perspective. (I say "sneaky" because I think he was aware that that fact had already been addressed. I think that because he seems to have his chronology pretty straight otherwise. But I'm trying to keep an open mind about his alignment at this point.)

I would love to hear everyone discuss their views of our discussion so far, ideally in the next 24 hours.

[Iecerint]

EBWOP: Allow me to clarify part of that first paragraph --

If Jack is town, it is unlikely that future discussion with him will make me more convinced of the fact. So that promotes ending discussion at the moment.

If Jack is scum, his rhetoric has already crossed the scumrhetoric threshold, so there's diminishing returns from continuing discussion with him at the moment.

Hearing from everyone else about circumstances is comparatively high-yield regardless of Jack's alignment.

[Jack]

You really need to quote or at least say which of my posts you are replying too, because:

To be honest, I was thinking mainly about my own perception of his post, but the voter that most came to mind was GiD. His was the vote that escalated the situation and prompted me to address the situation.

This kind of thing would really be much better in context.

I said that no one was voting SD for tone, they were voting him for content. My theory was about you noticing something scummy he said and trying to cover for him. My evidence was that since no one else was voting him on tone, but rather on content,

you

must have found him scummy. So I don't know how we jumped to you using that as a defense. It's not a defense, it's an admission.

GiD voted for pressure, not because of tone. You were addressing the situation before his vote, you twice mentioned the 2nd language thing, which basically implies that everyone should slow down or back off.

The point of all this: you found his tone scummy enough to

assume it was the reason for the votes

. But you were pushing a subtle defense. Now you say his tone is a little off, but otherwise defend him (in 83).

I've already answered your last question when GiD asked it. Check the previous page.

Correct me if this isn't who you were responding too:

@ Iecerint

: Are you meaning Vas in the post above, otherwise I don’t understand where you got that from?

I’m also amazed why it is discussed whom you trust, rather than whom you find suspicious (Post 55 by Plum and post 60 by Vas). But to be fair Vas mentioned Shadow Dancer as mildly scummy and when commented on that by Jack puts a vote there a few posts later.

I don't get how Plum and Vas have discussed who I trust. What do you mean? Post 55 is Plum saying she disagrees with my pre-role PM scumreads, and post 60 is Vasu saying I'm town for nonspecific reasons. The first is the opposite of not discussing who I find suspicious, and the second isn't even related to that dichotomy AFAIK.

You're correct that I am trying to learn more about SD on account of the increased scrutiny.

It sounds to me like you threw in an excuse for defending SD out of the blue. What post by GiD are you talking about?

If you're claiming that said "planting" was me asking whether English was his second language, then you are indeed horribly paranoid.

Why was I not horribly paranoid when I said that bit about you lying about not having a pm? Why isn't the whole case horribly paranoid?

If you are townie, and think I'm town, then you should think I'm horribly paranoid. If you are townie, and think I'm scum, then I shouldn't be paranoid, because scum aren't paranoid.

If Jack is town, it is unlikely that future discussion with him will make me more convinced of the fact. So that promotes ending discussion at the moment.

If Jack is scum, his rhetoric has already crossed the scumrhetoric threshold, so there's diminishing returns from continuing discussion with him at the moment.

What the heck is this supposed to mean? If I'm town, more discussion won't make you more convinced that I'm town? You can't mean that. What's the "scumrhetoric" threshold?

This sounds like a failed attempt to appear unsure of my alignment.

[VasudeVa]

I'm not exactly sure what I think about this. On one hand, Iec seems to be playing too defensively with "I'm not saying that blablabla" arguments but I actually feel justified with his since Jack is grinding him bad. I usually don't like arguments like that because arguments like that are some of the easiest excuses ever made.

Cough up your metas' you two. I need some sort of idea of your playstyle here. Right now, I am thinking that the sort of pressure Jack is putting against Iec is quite uncomfortably unlike the usual D1 pressuring I've seen. But then again, typical scum won't make that much effort on D1.

[Jack]

I'm not exactly sure what I think about this. On one hand, Iec seems to be playing too defensively with "I'm not saying that blablabla" arguments but I actually feel justified with his since Jack is grinding him bad. I usually don't like arguments like that because arguments like that are some of the easiest excuses ever made.

That's really all you get from Iec? What about the content of the argument? You are very indecisive here compared to a previous post. There you called me, green and iec townie, SV scummy, and SD scummy.

Cough up your metas' you two. I need some sort of idea of your playstyle here. Right now, I am thinking that the sort of pressure Jack is putting against Iec is quite uncomfortably unlike the usual D1 pressuring I've seen. But then again, typical scum won't make that much effort on D1.

You want me to tell you my meta?

Ok...

Here's me as town:
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... &start=175
And as scum:
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... c&&start=0

There you go

[Iecerint]

I could have sworn that someone already asked about that. Maybe GiD's subsequent response made me mis-remember. But yeah, that's the post it came from. Specifically:

But to be fair Vas mentioned Shadow Dancer as mildly scummy and when commented on that by Jack puts a vote there a few posts later.

You're correct that I am trying to learn more about SD on account of the increased scrutiny.

Joo thought I was asking Vas about his ESL status for some reason because he didn't know why I would ever ask SD about his, but then he added that the mild scrutiny placed on him might make investigation justified. (That's how I read the quoted part.) My reply affirms that that was the basis of investigating. (I guess it's throwing you off because it doesn't fit the paragraph-for-paragraph answering style?)

As I *have* already indicated, I felt awkward about the PM receipt, too. I got it right after I posted about it for the 2nd or 3rd time. It seems totally reasonable that that would put a reasonable doubt in someone's mind. To me, lying about your PM receipt status kind of approaches "spirit of the game" problems, so I wouldn't do it, but the timing was such that a reasonable person might have wondered about that IMO.

Regarding your "paranoia" tell, that's interesting, but, even if valid in the general case, it doesn't apply in this instance. Crumb4U.

I meant that, if you're town, then because you'd already started with rhetoric that I considered scummy, continuing was unlikely to change my opinion about you. Continuing would ultimately just lead to your hypothetical mislynch. It looks like the question you asked wasn't really an old question, so that didn't apply yet.

OpenSource mafia is my only finished scumgame on the site. You'll see that I don't openly defend my scumfriends. The SK NKs me, though, so you can't see what I do when being pressured. There's a bit of a wagon on me D1, though.

The only other time I've been significantly pressured is on D2 of Mongol mafia, my first game on the site, where I was ultimately lynched (as town). My response to pressure will probably look similar to this, except with more wallposts.

[Iecerint]

OpenSource

Mongol Mafia

[Jack]

That's ok Iec, I'm more interested in Vas right now

Can I get a thought from you on his fence sitting here vs his post 60?

[Iecerint]

The rest of my games are in my wiki.

@ Jack

I was at first going to vote you outright for dropping me so quickly under the circumstances, but then I went back and read post 60. Back there, Vas voiced suspicion of SD. If that was sincere suspicion, it would seem that extrapolating on that basis would be rather default.

On the other hand, the equivocation could just indicate caution. And I have in my life used rhetoric similar to yours as scum, not that town couldn't use it to analogous ends, so I could see someone coming to that conclusion. It is probably less likely to come to someone not in some fashion on the receiving end of it, though.

MoarEquivocation4U.

[Iecerint]

Oh, more facts. In addition to the SD point, Post 60 also indicates that he thought I was town at that point. So that might further contextualize the equivocation.

[Jack]

I can see Vas as scumpartner with SD. His vote after I prodded him is odd, being willing to call so many people townie is odd, and his last post is wishy washy. He might think I have a good case, but is worried that SD will be lynched if you are seen as scum. He could either be scum not wanting to commit to a bus on SD, or scum letting two townies fight it out. I'd talk about a theory involving the three of you as scum (it's fairly obvious) but that's a bit farfetched on page 4 even for me :p

I haven't dropped you by the way, I'm just shifting focus. I will say that I don't often see scum go for the "yes you are right, I was wrong about that..." etc approach.

[Jack]

Oh, more facts. In addition to the SD point, Post 60 also indicates that he

thought I was town at that point

. So that might further contextualize the equivocation.

Yes, interestingly. He called you and greenindirt as town vs town after your argument, "mostly from gut". Vas, what was the part that wasn't from gut?

He called that one town vs town, but when we have an argument that looks serious enough to have a possible lynch behind it, he sets himself up so that he can go either way.

Maybe

an honest position

of course

.

You aren't very clear in saying what you think of him.

[Iecerint]

Of course I wasn't. I was extremely equivocal. I explicitly indicated as much.

I am trying to determine whether I have perceived selective brilliance on your part.

[Jack]

I ignore text speak, lol. <--except "lol"

[Iecerint]

I want Johoo to come play with me so that I can vote Jack without abandoning him.