Open 54 - Basic 12 Player (over) before 529

[Ether]

3 Andycyca (wank, IH, Crub)
2 appleof88 (Elmo, Ripley)
2 IH (JDodge, Glork)
2 wank (Andycyca, Sikario8)
1 Elmo (Shanba)
1 Glork (Patrick)
1 Ripley (appleof88)

12 alive; 7 to lynch.

[JDodge]

not so much that they wouldn't listen to me as much as it was my establishing that i was, in no way, form, or fashion, a Battle Mage or mneme or any other experienced player.

Have things truly come to this? That the premier example of an experienced Mafia elder that occurs to a new player is -

Battle Mage

?

If it's worth anything, it worries me too

[Andycyca]

Sorry, school is overwhelming me this week, So I'll post quick thoughts on the game so far.

1. Advancing a bandwagon on IH
2. Keeping up up a post count without actually saying anything helpful
3. Establishing himself in our minds as someone who does entirely pointless things, in order to lower our expectations of his play
4. A decision to follow Glork, who looks like being an influential figure in the game.

I'm not sure this list is helpful, there must be many reasons behind a vote change. I think this list could be trying to narrow our vision negatively. I like the reasoning behind, though:

But when someone changes their vote, well, there's usually some kind of reason behind the change, because things are already moving, and replacing one silly vote with another is futile.

-------------------------------------

appleof83, Post 69: (apparently too carried away with joy at being understood to remember that he's voting for me) yeah! FOS Ripley!

fos ripley for reading way too much into things "

I don't know about this one. I don't think that "reading too much" is reason enough for a FoS, and I think it's strange that apple FoS'es the one he's voting for. To me, it sounds like throwing everything against him hoping for a lynch.
-----------------------------------
I'd like to know about Patrick as well.

[Patrick]

I didn't think that apple's original vote switch to IH was a big deal, but his reactions since then I don't like. Originally he said his vote for Ripley wasn't really serious, but it seems he was happy to FoS him when he'd got someone on his side. Also, I don't think reading too much into things is scummy this early, unless a vote seems to come at an oppotunistic time or for absolutely terrible reasons. The only other person who seems a little suspicious to me is Andycyca, for the reason IH pointed out already; it seems like his post 42 is only feigning curiosity.

I don't know about this one. I don't think that "reading too much" is reason enough for a FoS, and I think it's strange that apple FoS'es the one he's voting for. To me, it sounds like throwing everything against him hoping for a lynch.

Throwing everything against him? Doesn't really strike me that way.

I'd like to know about Patrick as well.

What do you want to know about me?

@Elmo, my vote for Glork wasn't random. But it didn't have any suspicion behind it either.

Unvote, Vote: appleof88

wank, sikario, got any suspicions?

[IH]

I defy anybody to arrange these statements in an order where they make any sense. And just why did Glork see the need to chip in at that stage?

Do you think Glork's comment was scummy?

if so do you think that someone can't comment on outside things, even if they've been resolved? Do you think it's possible Glork could have just misread your post? Could it be possible you're misunderstanding Glork's post?

Have things truly come to this? That the premier example of an experienced Mafia elder that occurs to a new player is - Battle Mage?

= ( I agree with this sentiment.

[IH]

I would also like to note that Andy didn't respond to me at all = |

[Elmo]

I think this list could be trying to narrow our vision negatively.

How would that work?

Patrick: Eh, I thought non-random vote = suspicion. O well then.

[Glork]

And just why did Glork see the need to chip in at that stage?

Because it struck me as odd and possibly scummy that you mentioned a list of possibilities and not a single one of them involved Apple even possibly being protown.

It seemed a bit too close-minded for my liking. My pointing it out is obviously something you took note of, so I'd say I did my job quite well.



Patrick: Why the move to Apple?

[Ripley]

Do you think Glork's comment was scummy?

I thought it was misleading.

Do you think it's possible Glork could have just misread your post?

How on earth do I know? I mean, it's possible anybody can misread any post, but unless there's a clear misunderstanding you tend to assume they haven't. I think he might have not read the last paragraph. Did you think there was an alternative interpretation of my post? Why aren't you asking

Glork

if he could have misread my post?

Could it be possible you're misunderstanding Glork's post?

Again, do you think there was an alternative interpretation that I missed?

I'm not sure this list is helpful, there must be many reasons behind a vote change. I think this list could be trying to narrow our vision negatively.

it struck me as odd and possibly scummy that you mentioned a list of possibilities and not a single one of them involved Apple even possibly being protown.

Well, since appleof88 has told us that his motivation was "poops and giggles", you can either (a) accept that as the truth, or (b) decide to examine it a bit more deeply in case it's not the truth, and if it's not the truth then the real reason is likely to be something negative, because why would he lie to cover up a

positive

reason? So there seems to be no point in considering positive alternative reasons. It's not as if the player in question had left the game without explaining his vote, in which case there would indeed be a case for examining positive reasons. I acknowledged, in the last paragraph of the post, the possibility that he could simply be telling the truth. The list was the list of alternative possibilities, which is why the option Glork attacked me for not including appeared separately at the end. I wish, now, that I had worded the list's title differently, but it seemed to me obvious that "Possible motives", by the very inclusion of the word "motive", didn't include the "no motive at all, completely random" possibility. Maybe this wasn't as clear as I thought.

[wank]

FoS: ripley

Calm down there before you make yourself look like overeacting scum. Wait, you already did?

[wank]

I am metagaming here but judging from my last game with andy, he's a tough one so no comment on him now. It will take a lot of reading and am a bit lazy now. Plus I prefer to keep pressure on ripley. Anyone care to join?

[Elmo]

Wank: Not personally, no. How's he look scummy?

IH: I don't like 42 either, he says I posted "out of nowhere". He could be misunderstanding, but I'm actually more inclined to believe he's trying to play it up. I also think the FoS is a bit much. What Shanba does strikes me as much more natural.

I don't think apple's vote is interesting, now.

Unvote

:

appleof88

;

vote

:

Andycyca

for 4 on.

p.s. Sikario, post content k thx.

[Andycyca]

I would also like to note that Andy didn't respond to me at all = |

I'm sorry, what was your question again?
-----------

What do you want to know about me?

I wanted to hear something from you, as people started pressurevoting me and I didn't see you posting on last page.
------------

Also, I don't think reading too much into things is scummy this early, unless a vote seems to come at an oppotunistic time or for absolutely terrible reasons.

You mean it could be a coincidence? Could be, but I'm more inclined to believe it wasn't.

Throwing everything against him? Doesn't really strike me that way.

What I meant is that he might be trying to post about the "negative" aspects of ripley's play for us to follow him. Maybe i worded wrongly

-----------
About 42... I said "out of nowhere" because it's a bit odd from my POV to post confidence in someone when we have little info available. At that point, Patrick had posted twice, and we weren't even discussing him or his actions at that point.
----------
@Crub: I understand that your vote was meant to pressure me, I'm OK with that, but I don't think it's fair to pressurevote when your posts last page (67 and 73) and those in the first page (12, 17 and 22) have no POV at all, no commitments, no good nor bad points on anyone. I know I'm not very active right now, but I'd like to read something useful from you.

[Patrick]

Patrick: Why the move to Apple?

I found it better than an arbitary vote on you. I chose between him or Andy. You haven't really done anything suspicious.

FoS: ripley

Calm down there before you make yourself look like overeacting scum. Wait, you already did?

I rarely like this type of accusation. I didn't see any traces of panic in his reaction.

You mean it could be a coincidence? Could be, but I'm more inclined to believe it wasn't.

No, I meant I didn't find it scummy the way he attacked apple over something very minor.

[wank]

I didn't see any traces of panic in his reaction. Only in its sheer amount. Otherwise, I would have opted for a vote over finger. I feel more pressure may reveal more?

Now that votes against andy is piling up, I should get reading...

[Glork]

Patrick: Why the move to Apple?

I found it better than an arbitary vote on you. I chose between him or Andy. You haven't really done anything suspicious.

Right.


Why Apple?

[Patrick]

I didn't see any traces of panic in his reaction. Only in its sheer amount. Otherwise, I would have opted for a vote over finger. I feel more pressure may reveal more?

But I don't see how he overeacted. Surely it's better to post in detail and answer to everything, than post briefly and leave stuff out? If you want to pick apart what he's written that's fine, but accusing him of typing too much seems like an easy way to throw suspicion on him.

Right.


Why Apple?

Not sure what you're looking for. If why I'm suspicious of him, it's like I already said, the timing and reasoning for the FoS I didn't like. If you mean, why him over Andy, then *shrug* I just picked one of them. Close call between two fairly faint suspicions.

[wank]

I still can't get a read on andy.

But reading back, I noticed a few things...

Has sika contributed anything worthwhile besides acting as the village idiot?

54 and 72 is interesting. So is 77.

Lastly, I am not going to pick apart ripley...at least not yet. But I am amazed you find his posts typical pat. And why so much interest in my pressure on him?

Unvote. Vote: ripley

[Patrick]

Lastly, I am not going to pick apart ripley...at least not yet. But I am amazed you find his posts typical pat.

Interesting. What's your meta on him that suggests his posts are not typical? As for "so much interest", not really. I just like to comment on all the issues that come up. It's too early for me to have much read on Ripley, but I usually call out dubious logic when I see it, and your "overeacting/overdefensive" attack on him seems weird to me. Maybe it just raises my heckles because usually when I've had it used on me, it was by scum.

[wank]

Compare your posts against his? 74 and 78.

I do notice you like to comment on eveything. Perhaps something regarding ripley after you make the above comparison? But wait until he responds first?

[Patrick]

Right. Done the comparison, but I'll let him comment first as you ask.

[Ripley]

Ironic that, of all things, wank decides to attack me for writing too much detail, since much of that detail was provided in response to direct requests from himself. His post 44 asks me for elaboration on my brief post 40. I provide this, as clearly and in as much detail as I can. He asks me for further comments. Again I oblige. I make another post that tries to cover all other questions directed at me as thoroughly as I can. He then attacks me for "over-reacting" by which it turns out he means the amount of detail I have used in my replies. He tries to round up support for "keeping pressure" on me. Since his problem with my play is that I post too much detail, what's the pressure intended to achieve? To pressure me into posting

less

? He explains that he saw no traces of panic in my posts or he would have voted me, then goes on to vote me anyway.

Surely it's better to post in detail and answer to everything, than post briefly and leave stuff out?

Do you disagree with this? If so, please explain why. And if your answer to that doesn't cover it, please explain exactly why you're voting me, and what caused your change of mind from your remark in Post 89: "I didn't see any traces of panic in his reaction. Only in its sheer amount. Otherwise, I would have opted for a vote over finger."

[Glork]

Patrick, I got something of a "sliding onto the weak sheep" feel from your switch to him. Apple looks like an easy run-up right now because he's screwing around and Ripley just took a pull at him. I've noted the "fuel for the fire" feeling I got from your post, and your response doesn't really satisfy me. *shrug*

[Shanba]

Unvote vote: Andycyca

[Patrick]

Patrick, I got something of a "sliding onto the weak sheep" feel from your switch to him. Apple looks like an easy run-up right now because he's screwing around and Ripley just took a pull at him. I've noted the "fuel for the fire" feeling I got from your post, and your response doesn't really satisfy me. *shrug*

I don't see a problem. Yes, he's playing weakly, that doesn't mean he can't possibly be scum. It's near the start of the game, where you put pressure on people and look at various reactions. It's not like we're going to lynch apple at the end of today for his FoS of Ripley. I have no problem with going after experienced players early, or anytime, but only if I see something suspicious. So far, I haven't. The part that bothered me came after he stopped screwing around.

So wank, I've done the comparison between posts 74 and 78, and his is obviously longer. But since he was attacked and not me, that seems normal. What's your point?