This is cute on some level. If either of you got lynched solely on the grounds of this discussion then the town might as well throw in the towel. However, what comes out of it might cause, in fact, a new and directly-relevant discussion ofThis post was put together to question the motivations of Spyrex, who I believe to both be buddying up, and 'taking sides' in an argument that he believes could result in the lynch of one or both of us. If you need an extrapolation, it is my suspicion that he could be scum that was simply looking for the first crack between two town players (this theory is dependent upon Vollkan being town of course), and then Spyrex is simply making himself the wedge to widen the crack into a lynch.
Am I really buddying up to Volkan? Of course not. I lean town on him because of what his discussion is bringing to light - all of my comments have been directed at what he is saying in context of this discussion. I tend to think, at this moment, he is a town pushing for discussion versus a scum looking for a gambit to trap a town in for a lynch.
Why would I use the term strongly?@Spyrex - Strongly? If you follow Vollkan's prosecution rules, then the onus is upon you to prove that opinion.
In point of fact, the actual events dispute that statement. I yielded to Vollkan's point rather easily, considering theory discussions to be a nice way to get things going, but something that belongs in the Mafia Discussion forum if you want to write pages and pages about it.
(Beware, herein lies a wall of quotes for the weak of heart)
Point 1 wrote:Ok, doesnt this mean that there is no self voting? As soon as they reach L-1 (by anyone), their vote automatically drops off, meaning they cant be involved in lynching themselves in any way.
In other words, all this mechanic does is throw off the actual vote count if someone is voting themselves. Creates confusion is what it does. The enemy loves confusion.
Now that we are aware of this mechanic, can you still justify your self-vote Vollkan? Since this mechanic wasn't stated prior to your self vote, include what you were thinking then, and what your thoughts are about it now. Is the move still valid?
Point 2 wrote: First off, whether those other votes had reasoning has little bearing on a self-vote being an anti-town move (notice I did not say scummy).
2nd, you invalidated your point that there was nothing different between their vote and your vote by the manner in which you did it.
3rd - Do you really think you are the first player with the wonderful idea of voting themselves to spur discussion? Here's a good paraphrase of why itscrapmove from your own mouth.
The only effect of a "self" vote is to, potentially cause someone to react badly - but that is not any more or less likely to come from scum or town because self-voting is inherently a bad play. Any reaction from a player says squat about their alignment
That means, despite your smarmy last comment, I ask of you the same question you asked yourself. You said it to stand out, now you've been called out on it. Dont tell me you didnt have an answer prepared. Or did you expect to be able to say "AHAH! Someone asked me about my self-vote, gotcha scum!!"
It's a terrible springboard for provoking discussion because what you get is A: a player who could be town or scum self-voting (I find it to be about equal) and B: Anyone who questions the move could be either town or scum because self voting is anti-town play.
So you've created a wonderful WIFOM to kick off the game, that tells us no information about alignments. All you've done is given yourself a reason to feel self-important enough to make unjustifiably smug comments.
Wrong. While it would be nice for us to understand why he has a suspicion, he doesnt have to "prove" it is scummy. (By the way that's a scummy attitude in games I've played Vollkan.Scum gets into a "You got no case on me Copper, you cant prove nuttin" frame of mind)
Players are allowed to play by gut, and I've seen some that are very good at it. It is optimum for them to be able to convince town of why their gut is pointing at a player, but we dont have "game lawyers" who will come busting into the thread to force him to "prove it".
P.S. - a self-vote may be anti-town, but is not inherently scummy. I DO find Vollkan's maneuvering and justification for his anti-town move to be scummy. Calling the town idiots or scum unless they agree with him is a perfect example of lower level psychological manipulation.
I'll stick with this for this bit.Post 3 wrote:First off, conversation in general is pro-town, but useless flummery is not. Having a major role in the conversation generated by your self-vote, I'd rather not consider it to be flummery. In doing so, I have to concede that in this case your self vote was not an anti-town move. There are many ways to generate a conversation, and this is as valid as any. Makes it a neutral tell.
Giving the "generating discussion" reason after your coy question to yourself was lame. LAME! But again, it did what you purport to be after, and so is also an acceptable response. Neutral tell.
1.) Initially, before the storm even started you made a heavy implication: that a self-vote was by nature designed to sow confusion - and you say that only the enemy would want to cause confusion.
2.) This first set of replies, over and over, reads with a heavy implication that his motives are scummy.
--- You start out saying anti-town (which is negative in nature).
--- By calling his explanation (that it is for discussion) "crap" in the manner in which you did you are implying that he is "copping out" by saying its discussion and it truly is a "AHA" Gambit.
--- You then move directly into the "Its a gambit".
--- Accusations of WIFOM because this discussion doesn't directly prove alignments?
--- You are saying that his mentality (that proof should be required for a lynch) is a scum tactic.
--- You say it is an attempt to manipulate the town.
Now, that didn't bother me in and of itself - it was strong and actively confrontational in a way that I didn't like, but (OHH NO MORE BUDDYING WITH VOLK) I'm not one to vote on "I dont like it".
However...
3.) All of the above vanishes and it becomes a neutral-tell.
What? That drastic of a flip that quickly bothered me. Everything in two pointed to a strong "scum" vibe you had on Volkan - but no?
Hence I asked. Your first reply was "I wanted an answer" but the above really didn't jive with it.
So, I asked again... and saw a spiral of words ending in a vote for me.
(As an aside, I love how that post again paints Volk in a negative (scummy) manner yet the final is that I am scum and found a town-on-town fight to wedge myself in).
But, as it sits I just find this bizarre and moderately scummy. Before I get all hoss wild I would like you to give me specific questions you want answered (preferably that are within what has happened and not in the mystical context of
So, yes, nice and simple. Ask me questions you want answered or points I've made you'd like clarification on.