Let’s look at the train of thought here that you are claiming exists. Forgive the length of this post. Here’s my original question to you:
So there I was talking about your plan and asking you to clarify it. What reasons do you disagree with? You eventually said you didn’t advocate a random vote, and in post 489 you discussed each point. I still haven’t voted or FOSed you at all - we were talking about the PLAN. Post 501, I respond with:
I will point out, in direct response to this line of yours: “The reasons you gave for your suspicions, and the lack of backing them up when questioned were far bigger reasons.” that the one and only question you asked me, why I thought power roles were in danger of a random vote, I answered there. So I need you to explain to me what was wrong with my suspicions about your straategy, WHICH YOU YOURSELF ENDED UP SAYING WAS A BAD IDEA, and what statements of mine I was meant to be backing up that you felt weren’t being addressed.
I never accused you of anything, but you’re saying I did. I never backed down from anything, because I hadn’t any position other than I thought your plan was bad, but you’re saying I did. You’re saying I threw stones at you, but I never did. Show me where I did. The whole conversation was about the random vote plan, and since we both ended up agreeing that it wasn’t gonna happen, end of discussion.
Now, I have explained the zeuriel vote. I thought he meant something in his statement. He explained it. The guy I thought he was smearing didn’t make an issue of it. So why should I not retract my vote? That’s more of a reason half a dozen other people have given for their vote changes. People have been voting and unvoting for no stated reason, and I stated a reason, and that’s apparently not good enough. And now people who have votes on them are turning to me. I just find that discomforting.
Made me cry. : p I get far too wordy sometimes.
Looking over the vote count, it certainly seems to be pretty spread out for now, which I feel is a good thing. Three people have three votes each and they COULD become potential bandwagons but then again, one (or even two or all) of the three COULD very well be scum.
I also don’t feel that scum would be too stupid to jump on a bandwagon but then again, sometimes when you think something is the most obvious and one could NEVER do it, they’ll do it anyway because the most “obvious” thing then becomes the most unexpected thing (because everyone’s figuring that they’d never do something that dumb). Does that make any sense?
Mtgman’s argument against ArizonaTeach looks very strange to me in comparison to his complaint about me, Mad and storyteller. He’s doing exactly what he’s accused us of–his ruckus with AZ.
And his accusation against me is rather shallow–I’ve pointed suspicion at Mad, but I gave a reason (yeah, it wasn’t a thesis, but it’s clear). Why does Mtgman calling out someone’s suspicious behavior is itself suspicious. It’s not like I’ve been hammering on Mad, either.
I definitely find Mtgman scummy, but Mal is still top of my list of suspects: Malacandra for a poorly reasoned vote. Mtgman for his strange arguments against AZTeach and to a lesser degree, his discussion of power roles. sachertorte and FlyingCow for continuing the power role discussion after it was clearly unproductive.
Not only that, but notice this: he is voting for AZTeach, because, he says, he finds it suspicious that AZTeach has twice cast a vote for someone and then withdrawn it for no good reason.
Fair enough, right? I don’t agree with the idea that this is inherently suspicious behavior, but there’s nothing unreasonable or inconsistent about the fact that Mtgman does.
Except.
Later in the same post, he points an FoS at me. He has a few reasons, but one of them is this:
The answer to this question, obviously, is that Mad has never answered my second set of concerns. My vote stands until I have reason to retract it. And while there are others I find suspicious, I have never said that there are others I find more suspicious. 'Till now.
Which is it, Mtgman? Is AzTeach scummy because he withdraws his vote for no evident reason or am I scummy because I do not?
Accusing two different people of being scum, and using as evidence behaviors that are literal opposites, looks like reaching to me.
A longer post, outlining my case against Mtgman in as much detail as I can manage, will follow somewhat later (it’ll take me some time to compose it). But for the moment, I will allay his concern about my vote for Mad.
He’s scummy because he folds without a fight, and you’re scummy because you continue to pick fights with people who aren’t around. The reasonable assumption is that something in real life has taken MadTheSwine away from the boards for a bit. So you continuing to keep your vote on him looks scummy. You’ve said multiple times that it takes dialog to find scum. Still, you seem fixated on a guy you’ve had very little dialog, this game, with. It doesn’t make sense to me, so there we are.
I see you’ve corrected your stuck vote now, and that actually makes you look less scummy. Good for you.
Except I’ve only voted twice total, and only retracted one vote. So I don’t know why he says I’ve “thrown stones” twice.
On preview - folds without a fight? What the hell? What have I been doing since the beginning? You show me, specifically, the post that you claim I made in which I fold without a fight.
OK, here we go. This will be long; I apologize in advance.
I have, I think, outlined at sufficient length the reason I feel that Mtgman’s insistence on discussing meta-game issues was hurting the town. But as I’ve noted, someone who has a different perspective on strategy than I is not necessarily scum.
My suspicion arises more from what I see as his regular mischaracterization of my remarks and the remarks of others, and his ability to simply ignore questions posed to him - or rather, to answer completely different questions.
For instance, he says that Mad, Pleonast, and I “came straight out and started mixing it up with each other” (post 808). I admittedly went right after Mad, because I saw him using what I considered to be specious reasoning to go after Clockwork Jackal very early in the game. Mad replied, “I’m surprised at you, story,” answered my points - insufficiently so - then disappeared. Yeah, he really mixed it up with me, all right. Pleonast voted for Mad, “for shaky reasoning,” but very shortly thereafter unvoted him and hasn’t mentioned him since. He also sent a little bit of mild suspicion my way. Mad has never mentioned Pleonast in any post since the game started. I have asked Pleonast, once, for an explanation of one of his actions, which he provided and which satisfied me.
That’s not exactly a donnybrook, folks. Yes, there was some suspicion exchanged among the three people Mtgman cites, but the same could be said of practically any three players selected at random. The idea that we “came straight out and started mixing it up with each other” is simply, plainly, false.
Next, he characterizes my reasoning for voting MtS as “pretty terse.” The post in which I outlined my initial suspicion and voted was #281; my response to his response is #351. I’d happily submit the question for general judgement: is my reasoning in those posts “pretty terse?” I admit I didn’t fill fifty pages with evidence, but it was a few hundred posts into Day 1.
There’s also that habit of answering a question ever-so-slightly different from the one that was asked. Once I realized that the Oracle couldn’t distinguish between Cultist and nonbeliever, I noted that IF the Oracle survived five or six days, as Mtgman’s was suggesting we target, and identified three nonbelievers, it would be entirely possible that none of them would be Cult, we’d lynch three non-Cultists, and be down zero scum with zero evidence. sachertorte suggested that maybe Mtgman missed the thing about the Oracle as I did; Mtgman replied:
Note how he basically doesn’t address my concern. He says that three nonbelievers are acceptable collateral damage, but under the scenario I was positing, that “collateral damage” would the entire result of his plan - three dead nonbelievers, no dead scum. He’s basically just pretending I said something different (that catching scum might cost us a few nonbelievers) than I said (that we might very well kill a few nonbelievers and catch no scum at all).
Then he moves on to talking about how awesome it would be if we had complete Oracle results on everyone, right now. What does this have to do with anything? Does anyone seriously contend that if we had complete Oracle results on everyone, right now, we would have the slightest chance of losing? Of course not! But what we would do if we had complete Oracle results has nothing whatsoever to do with what we would do if we had Oracle results on six players. The whole second half of this passage is just… it’s just smoke. It’s something that you can’t disagree with - obviously, yes, he’s right, if we had complete Oracle results we’d do beter than any town has done so far - but that doesn’t actually address the concern that it is purportedly addressing.
So there we go. Add all this to what I consider to be the gross inconsistency between his reason for voting AzTeach and his reason for FoS-ing me, and I’m very happy with the location of my vote for the nonce. However - and this is important - I am getting emotionally involved. I have seen this go badly for towns in the past. I am trying to recognize that the way I have perceived the above might not be reasonable, might be colored by the fact that I’m personally annoyed. I’d like to hear town dissection of my argument, if there is any to be heard.
Can you not see how telling someone that their attempts to discuss your ideas is “annoying” will generate a personal defensiveness that goes a bit beyond the game and the role-playing? Really?
Sorry for the four posts so close together, but I have to go to bed now and want to address this before I do.
This is ridiculous. Just absurd. I “continue to pick fights with people who aren’t around?” How does that - what? What? This is reaching of the worst kind. I voted for Mad because I saw evidence that he might - emphasis might, because I certainly don’t know for sure - be scum. A day passed. That evidence still existed. His leaving the boards didn’t change it. Why on Earth should I vote for anyone but the person who I currently think is most likely to be scum? He disappeared; my reasons for voting for him did not.
My vote wasn’t stuck, and it wasn’t “wrong” so I did not correct it. Until tonight, I felt my best evidence was for Mad, so he had my vote. As far as I am concerned, that is the only “right” vote that there is. I now see evidence that you are a better suspect, so I’ve changed my vote to match that change in my belief. Any other approach - beyond “vote for who you think is most likely to be scum” - is singularly useless.
I agree with you there, amended with Diggit’s further clarification re: scum. It’s not that I mind the vote. Day one votes are thinly supported all over. What bothers me is the thought that I might have inadvertently misrepresented your position somehow that I’m not seeing. Not to hearken back to earlier games overmuch, but on M4 day one someone, who shall remain nameless lest the mere mention of his name fixate him upon me once again (coughIdle Thoughtscough,) made the exact same claim regarding me twisting his words. I dismissed it then, but now you’ve both got me wondering whether I need a refresher course in reading comprehension.
It’s still not clear to me how you think I twisted your words. I might have to start asking people to post using fewer complex phrases and shorter words.
There are 37.5 hours left in the Day. No votes will count after 2:00 PM EST on Sunday unless there is a tie, at which point it goes into a 12 hour over time in which only those tied (or a No-Dunk) may be voted for as laid out in the Rules.
There are a total of 26 Votes, and this may be the last official vote count I can squeeze in before the end of the Day. I will try to get one in tomorrow, but it is unlikely.
Just catching up. My latest thoughts are below. I’ll divide topics with lines. Sorry for the length.
I’ll start with my current votee, Idle Thoughts. I’ll first link to my claims of 669. Moving on from there, In post 772:
Are you saying that non-believers shouldn’t be dunked because they might be the alchemist? The alchemist is far from a clear benefit. (I haven’t worked it through, but the alchemist could try to role-block someone he/she really really thought was scummy, and that could help town, but I don’t know if that outweighs the risks of role-blocking pro-town power.) Anyway, not dunking a scum candidate because they might be the alchemist seems like scum trying to save non-believer IDs.
Then:
Trying to steer the discussion to finding the psychopath seems scummy. (You did say “cultists and … psychopath”, but how/why on earth could one “focus” on finding the psychopath… a role that may not exist for the entire game?
And:
You say this four times. That seems… weird, I dunno. Not much more to say on it really.
I’m not trying to pick on you, Idle Thoughts, honestly. But, this really smells of someone trying to advise his scum how not to get killed. “Hey newbie scum, I’m Idle Thoughts. I know we haven’t gotten to talk yet, but don’t go jumping on any bandwagons too soon! You’ll get caught!”
Next up, ArizonaTeach still gives my vibes, but the only real cite-worthy thing is the already discussed Zeriel unvote in 580. I will take the opportunity, though, to quote from that post to lead into the next section…
(Re: Captain Klutz)
I too find that non-defense a little weird. I found his lurking suspicious, I found his explanation for his lurking more suspicious, and his non-defense of being called out for it could certainly be interpreted as scum trying not to draw attention to the gross slip up.
CK is lower on my list, though, because I can (in a pinch) explain away his actions with:
But FoS.
A minor FoS to Queuing, for his (in my eye) weak reasons for voting for DiggitCamara in 670.
sachertorte is high on the vote count, so I figured I’d chime in. Defending another player’s position is not something folks do easily in these parts, for fear they’ll suggest (apparent) alliances. But, I play a lot of poker, and I know I’ve got to trust my reads, even if it costs me all my chips. Anyway, it seems that the votes for sachertorte are centered around the idea that he keeps (kept) discussing theory. The only thing I ever saw in his ideas was a guy who really likes solving problems. (I’m one of those kinds of guys, and I appreciate the draw.) And there was bad math he was trying to correct. I fully agree that it was STFU time, but I just never saw any malice in his posts. Actually, the energy he put into trying to come up with a clever scheme screams town to me.
Also, two of the three voters (SnakesCatLady and fluiddruid) have that little-content-but-clearly-present kind of lurker feel that gives me the willies, and the third (MonkeyMensch) has posted a lot yet is a blank page to me, which gives me more willies. Actually, upon review, I’ve stumbled on this 469:
I agree. Are you trying to train the newbies? That was rhetorical, but actually, here’s a direct question to fluiddruid: How do you think town should handle folks who behave as you describe in the above quote?
It wasn’t just your attempts to discuss my ideas. It was the combination of discussing those ideas and dissing me for discussing them. That earns the reasonably mild label of “annoying.” If this bothers you to the point where you feel you can’t handle the game emotionally, I’m not sure what to do about it. That wasn’t the intent, but I have reservations about your emotional revelations. Firstly, I don’t trust you. Secondly, I’m not sure I should care. I will say this, if it is genuine then you may want to step back and consider the way you approach the game. There is almost certainly SDMB Mod discussions about allowing future games, and events like the dust up between Queuing and someone, whose name escapes me at the moment, towards the end of MII, and tirial’s meltdown in MIII are bad business for the board. If each of these mega threads generates bad will among posters I’m betting they’ll be disallowed. If this “I’m personally frustrated” thing is a tactic, I suggest you drop it. You may be doing more damage than you realize.
All that having been said, I understand getting worked up over Internet-based interpersonal conflict. It’s happened to me, and it was pretty frustrating. I have no reason to trust you, but I have to live with myself and my own conscience and I don’t like having unresolved conflicts(unless you’re one of my in-laws). So here’s the olive branch. I’ll drop my FOS and wipe my side of the slate clean. From here on I won’t negatively reference anything you said in any post directed at me before your acceptance of this peace offering. I don’t require anything of you. You can keep your vote on me and defend your accusations against anyone who cares to challenge them, if anyone does. I won’t contest it. I don’t think the hamsters could stand it, and I don’t want THAT on my conscience(unless the hamsters are my in-laws).
Your part of the bargain? You lighten up and don’t let people who sling words like “annoying” get under your skin so easily.
If I post, it’s “content free” and fluff. If I don’t post, I’m lurking. I see no reason to post when I have nothing to add. Do you want me to repeat things I have noticed that others have said? I see no point in making this thread even longer than it is - it is hard enough to keep track of what is going on. When I have something to say, I say it. Otherwise I keep my mouth shut. How else am I supposed to play? I don’t think it is my place to tell power roles how to play or when to claim, as some others seem to do.
a few quick notes:
I reiterate my earlier post about recreational pharmaceuticals, restraint in the use thereof, and calming down a bit.
My wife’s birthday is tomorrow. You probably won’t see any posting from me unless it’s relatively early in the day or relatively late.
SnakesCatLady, yes, we want you to reiterate what you agree with and who you suspect. Leave us some breadcrumbs so we have some ability to figure out who you are and how you’re thinking–if you’re town, then we get some potential pointers when/if the scum kills you. No breadcrumbs = no opportunity for any decent analysis of your death.
My main point was that the list of votes didn’t have any names from my “trusted, for now” list. However, surely you have some hunches you could share with us all. What are your thoughts on the other high-vote getters? Do you agree with those who voted for them? (I’m not asking you to go trolling for this information, but this is the sort of thing that helps me believe you’re not scum.)
I forgot to mention: Since SnakesCatLady admits a desire to sit back and thus not provide information with which to ID her (a tactic I view as scummy, but just generally anti-town), I’ll place her on deck for my vote if my arguments about Idle Thoughts don’t seem to ring true to anyone else.
Where are you getting that from? I said plainly, in the reply you even quoted, that it should AT LEAST be CONSIDERED in the end. It wasn’t even remotely saying anything like non-believers shouldn’t be dunked if it comes to that. I’m just saying, and I’ll say again, that non-believers are town too.
Yes, I know that cult will come up as non-believer. Does this mean we should automatically vote for all non-believers if/when they are brought to light? If they’ve shown suspicious behavior, sure. But all I’m saying (and trying to keep the possibility in my own mind) is that true town would, at least, do well to remember this. That it can still be won with non-believers alive because non-believers are town and are actively trying to kill off the cultists too.
I don’t see how you got “we should not dunk non-believers” from that, for one.
For two, this was all based on discussion of the Alchemist, who would show up as a non-believer but, again, would be a role who would be trying to kill off the cultists just as true town is.
[quote]
The alchemist is far from a clear benefit. (I haven’t worked it through, but the alchemist could try to role-block someone he/she really really thought was scummy, and that could help town, but I don’t know if that outweighs the risks of role-blocking pro-town power.)[/quuote]
Also remember that they have the choice, it seems, to not do anything at all.
Only I wasn’t saying that or implying that. Again, I assume “scum candidate” here means someone who is already pretty suspicious looking/acting and has some cards stacked against him/her. If that’s the case, it more than the right choice.
I also can’t help but notice you added brackets to my quote. I was also NOT saying that a claim of Alchemist SHOULD be believed. I was just saying, AGAIN, that I just personally think we’d all do better just to keep the CONSIDERATION in the back of our heads.
You seem to be yelling and pointing fingers at me just for wanting and trying to keep all possiblities open in my head and putting it out there that others should do the same.
Am I missing something here? If you reread that quote, you’ll see I said “IF/WHEN activated”. The answer to your own question lies in the quote itself.
Don’t really know what to say here so I’ll just go on to…
Well, it is part of the game so it’s not like it’s unexpected. And if you really are thinking those lines, I’d advise you to check out the last couple of mafia games. The first two I wasn’t in. The third I was town/power role. And the last I was crew/town. In this game, I’m town again (although I certainly don’t expect you or anyone to believe me so no harm, no foul), so I really don’t know what to tell you or what I can say. I honestly don’t know what I’d do or how I’d behave if I were scum because I have yet to have the chance to be scum.
And it looks like that’s where your post ends regarding things about myself.
My vote for you stands. Just that whole so eager to seemingly kill off people who weren’t posting, it strikes me as something that scum very well could do just to have an excuse to vote for someone, but hey, I could be wrong too. But my feelings say otherwise.
I suppose that’s the whole to-do with the game: I see your actions, taken as a whole, to be consistent with scum or alternately to be consistent with a townie who I’m just reading completely wrong. I’ve just got to figure out which is right, and at the moment, I lean strongly to the former although I cannot (of course) rule out the latter. I’m hoping my fellow townies (“Bueller… Bueller…”) will pipe up and say “I just don’t see it, Pasta” or “Yeah, I agree with those points.” If neither of those things happen, I suppose I will do better directing my vote elsewhere for toDay. We’ll see what develops in the next 30 hours…
