OK I’m lost. Re-read required.
Both Red Skeezix and peeker himself seem confused (or at least, purport to be confused) about what’s Scummy about peeker’s behavior. What he’s doing is having the same effect as the random Wiki-quoting special ed did in a previous game, that got some mention earlier. It’s cluttering up the thread and blocking actual game-related discussion. It’s getting us to think, sure, but it’s not getting us to think about the game, it’s getting us to think “what the heck is peeker talking about” instead. Now, this strategy was only viable for special ed once he was already confirmed Scum, because he’s known to be a sane, sensible player, but peeker could well be trying it anyway, hoping to skate on a defense of “Oh, that’s just peeker, that’s the way he always plays”.
Well, I for one am not going to let him get away with that. His playstyle is anti-Town, and despite what many people say, anti-town is precisely the same thing as pro-Scum. “But he always plays this way” is not a defense; it just means that he should always get voted for it.
Peek’s playstyle is absolutely anti town right now. It isn’t always, and if we are going to allow metagame arguments in then that should give us pause when thinking about if we should vote for peek right now or not.
For me, I can’t get behind the peeker lynch right now for the same reason I could never get behind an early lynch of Meeko when he was going his anti town shtick. There are other fish to shoot at that will net us more information than peeker. What do we learn if we lynch Peek today? If you can honestly tell me that you think a lynch of Peek will gain us any information about the people lynching him and won’t just make the game a little easier for you to read, then I will support the lynch. Right now I don’t see it.
I am still happy with my vote and would like someone else to take a look at the events surrounding the name claim, because right now I think that’s where the best Day 1 information is living.
I agree with NAF.
peek’s playstyle makes it harder for me to follow a game, but that doesn’t mean no value is added. Just finished a game on Idle’s board where peek nailed the scum hard, irritiating playstyle present all the way.
Can you explain what, in your view, peeker is doing differently in this game (relative to any given past game) that makes his playstyle anti-Town in this game but not in others?
That is kinda my point, exactly Peeker. **You don’t get the ADHD comment, and by extension, you don’t get me. This is the crux of my recent heat on you. **
When I first “met” you, I thought you would be a bridge I could use to understand and enjoy Mafia and Haggle better. I thought that other players would look at me, and know how to interact with me better, because of their experiences with you.
I thought that you were better accepted among our peers. I figured that they had “figured” you out, and that I would be accepted in a similar fashion.
I thought we were the same.
Let’s go slow here:
1.** I am not offended by you.** I truly have no ill feelings on anything.
1b. If anything, I feel slightly better for the entire exchange, as I Think it gives me practice, and let’s other players gain insight on how I work.
-
I am offended by your style.
2b. You choose to play in a manner similar to mine. I used to think you had NO control over it. Again, I am working on my control, but I have a HUGE uphill climb -
We both know that you do have control.
-
The fact that you chose not to control it, kinda puts me off.
4b. It does no good for your play.
4c. It puts me 6 feet under every time someone incorrectly assumes meeko = peeker.
You choose to be confusing in your play. Fine.
What is not so fine, is that your confusion begins to overlap into my earnest play.
Here is one of my “Go To” arguments, I use whenever people don’t understand me.:
**
I hope you understand that I have no control over this. If I did have control over it, don’t you think I would chose NOT to do it, given that I have nothing to show for it? **
But see, for what ever reason, you totally shatter that argument. For better for worse, we are joined at the hip in Mafia.
What you do, hurts me. This belief is confirmed every time someone lumps us together, either in name, or by a grouped term “double e”.
I am working on my game. I get that people want me to play Mafia differently. People do not want “Meeko” to be “Meeko”. I mean “Differently” as compared to my past 8 games.
You don’t need to work on your game. You have everything you need already.
**
I don’t understand why you are, in a word, masochistic here.**
Changing your play immediately helps you. You won’t get votes, you won’t have to re-explain yourself.
Changing your play helps me. I won’t be forced to go three steps forward, two steps back. [The “double e” family needs a divorce.]
Changing your play helps everyone who plays Mafia. Again, less volume. Less excrement.
That being said, I don’t want you to abandon a complete tool in your tool box.
**
The question is control. The issue is throttling. It is not “give up X Y or Z”. **
Can someone else please step in here? I am aware that this is doing nothing for this particular game, at this point.
NETA:
1.Peeker does not need to work on his game.
1b. I believe peeker has a complete set of Mafia playing tools.
1bii. I do not have a complete set of Mafia playing tools. I am working to find a complete set.
2.He does need to use different tools.
2b.Tools he has.
-
Thus Peeker does not need to ““Work”” on his game, in the sense that I need to.
-
A change of pace, with other tools are needed by Peeker, though.
It seems to me that peeks is trying harder to piss people off this game than he has in the past. He seems to be actively pushing buttons that he has, at least the last time I played with him, tried not to push before. I don’t necessarily think that means anything this time around, every game has its own dynamic, but it does seem to me that peek is almost trying to live up to his reputation rather than just being himself this game.
It has been a little while since I have played in a serious game with him though, so I don’t know if he has been trending this way anyway or not.
Either way I think he isn’t a great lynch today.
WAG:
Peeker has just come off a win where ““Peeker”” won the game. Perhaps he is looking for a continuation bet.
Peeker, Change Gears. This is not the same game over there.
Think of poker, peeker, and imagine that instead of telling you how much I was betting, I described it using differential calculus. It would make the game more interesting, wouldn’t it? It would be more difficult to understand.
and, I maintain, it would detract from the game of poker.
Being unclear detracts from the game of Mafia. It may be enjoyable for you to play ‘try to understand peeker’ but that’s not the game I signed up to play.
otay, thanks for the input.
what would you have me do, my puppeteers?
continue to engage or merely remain mime like on the sideline?
because i will always endorse more participation than less. but if instead of a minumum level of participation we are to mandate a maximum level of participation then i can certainly agree to that collective directive. not that i think it makes the game better but if that is the choice then i will certainly comply.
you’re changing the argument.
No one was complaining about the amount of your participation, but the style of your participation.
We want you to be direct.
See, when you posted the wicked witch you tube clip, you didn’t say…“This is my role…” you didn’t in any way indicate you were claiming.
You posted it in response to Zeriel voting you for voting for storyteller.
And you think the rest of us should have understood that you were claiming.
That’s not clear. and you’re fully capable of putting together sentences. I’m nmot even asking you to capitalize. Just be clear.
Here’s the main problem. Whatever peeker thinks about the way he plays, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy that the more shit he catches for playing that way, the more town gets fucked out of playing the game.
By now, peeker should be on notice that at least very many of the people he is playing with are annoyed at his opacity. If he wants to get lynched for it, that’s going to be on him. He’s not stupid. In the meantime there’s been precious little discussion of anything that seems at all likely to give us information down the road, and that, to me, is the greater danger than letting peeker play his game for a while. If we lynch peeker, we won’t learn basically anything about anybody else; it’s null tells all the way down.
If peeker continues playing the same way, we’ll never learn anything from him either, and that will at some point, one imagines, be a dealbreaker. The way we’re headed now, though, we’re looking at not learning anything from anyone because we aren’t talking about anything else.
I just did a reread and, much to my dismay, didn’t find anything to comment on that I hadn’t already commented on, other than the above. Hence this post.
ok. i’ll say this once again. if my attempt at subtlety was inferred to be confusing and anti - town then i throw myself on the altar or all that is mafia to be judged.
i am the wicked witch of the west. i am a witch and win with the town.
here’s the doggone pm, fcs.
and sorry ed it’s the non known that makes poker a fun game to play. matter of fact i win just as many hands with crud as i do with made hands. that’s what kind of makes it interesting. 8 3 off suit can be just as powerful as pocket rockets played correctly.
You are The Wicked Witch of the West (Witch). You are Fictional. You win with the Town.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wic...ch_of_the_West
sheesh.
and ed you want me to be direct.
tex is pulling the same shit that drain and sis tried to pull off with you on idle’s board. that is some serious weak cheese and he is either a lazy townie or a scum.
is that direct enough?
I just re-read the whole thing, too. I focused very carefully on peeker’s contributions. I have a problem with peeker, in that I don’t find him even remotely obscure or opaque, and almost never do. He writes in an unusual pattern and he’s fond of figurative language, analogies, and references, but his thought process is usually pretty clear to me. Nonetheless, he is getting heat today, as usual, for his supposed opacity. Just immediately above, **Jimmy[b/] says this:
Stuff like this; is this reasonable? That was the point of my re-read, and I have come to the following conclusion:
No, it is not.
As far as I can tell, the SINGLE weird, confusing thing that peek has done in this game was claim Wicked Witch of the West by way of a youtube clip (153 - 7:21PM on 3/19). And even this wasn’t all THAT confusing, given the context. At 199, Tom Scud notes: “peeker claimed Wicked Witch of the West.” So evidently Tom got it. peeker responded directly to Tom and did not challenge Tom’s interpretation, tacitly acknowleding it as correct.
Chronos gets annoyed at 209, saying that Peek wasn’t clear at the time. But clearly, by 209 (barely 50 posts after the initial clip is posted, and less than 24 real-life hours), Chronos now understands Peek’s intentions.
A couple of people push peek for a more distinct and direct claim. Texcat, in particular, says this:
OK. At 303, peeker claims unambiguously, and directly.
So the entire substance of this incredible distraction that is peeker is that for a period of about 150 posts, peeker had made a name claim that was slightly less direct than everyone else’s, but still direct enough that at least some players understood it completely within minutes and most others within a few clarifying posts. Since then, peeker himself has been clear, if a bit irreverent, and the distraction related to him has been entirely the result of other people continuing to magnify this one thing that he did into a perceived pattern of behavior.
I don’t know if it’s Scummy, or if it’s players bringing previous experiences with peeker into this game and letting those past experiences color their present perception. In either case, I do not agree that he has been a consistent “distraction” or anything resembling consistently anti-Town.
And I am suspicious of the votes against him. I am particularly suspicious of Chronos, at the moment, because my feeling is that Chronos kind of rode peeker and rode him, waiting until the mood was right to vote, even though peeker had done nothing whatsoever new between Chronos’ early admonishments and Chronos’ actual vote. I think Chronos was cynically pushing peeker’s buttons and waiting for the rest of the players to start to catch the lynchin’ mood before commiting his own vote. I have a meeting, but I will elaborate on this in more detail either tonight or tomorrow morning.
For now, though:
vote Chronos
Peeker, what is FCS?
FCS = For Christ’s Sake
Interesting point Story. Looks like I will have to do a re-read of my own.
for christ’s sake.
bollux