Newbie 2072: All Guns Blazing!! - Ended

[Lukewarm]

I liked 73

VOTE: Val

[alstroemerial]

In post 73, alstroemerial wrote:
I have my eye on Zyla a bit already because [ongoing games] but it's more of a lean than a read at this point.


In which direction is that lean? I am reading 'having your eye on' as 'scumlean', but I just want to clarify because that could potentially be taken in either direction.

Yeah it's a light scumlean

[alstroemerial]

ebwop: sorry the quote got butchered, I was trying to do the thing where I highlight just the part I want to quote

[Lukewarm]

ebwop: sorry the quote got butchered, I was trying to do the thing where I highlight just the part I want to quote

That feature does not work if you are trying to grab a quote within a quote

[alstroemerial]

boo

[marcistar]

Regarding Val's super long post about Not_Mafia, I interpreted it as a complete joke because nobody should be using that sort of logic seriously, and Val doesn't seem like the type. As a result, Luke's response threw me off a bit because it seemed to be taking it completely at face value. So I wasn't sure if Luke was, like, playing along, or...? Similarly in terms of 40, I'm like, uh, not everyone had posted yet and it was the first page? So I wasn't sure if it was serious or not. I mean, if it was, what I'll say is I was holding myself back from over-posting because I didn't want to monopolize the thread when not everyone had even confirmed yet.

so what would u label luke as rn?

[alstroemerial]

Normally the 'blowing up nothing into something' bit would ping scum for me, but I just don't think someone whose Topics List has so many games would fall into that trap. I also suspect that their questioning of me was a subtle way to try to sort me, which strikes me as town-like. So if I had to pick I'd give a TL, but everything is like scarcely off of null right now at this stage.

Marci, do you have any thoughts on the game so far? What do you think of Zyla?

[Val89]

Normally the 'blowing up nothing into something' bit would ping scum for me, but I just don't think someone whose Topics List has so many games would fall into that trap.

I'm sorry, I didn't follow what that means. Would you mind rephrasing?

I get what blowing up nothing into something means, but why do you feel it's only scummy coming from an inexperianced player, is that is what you are trying to say?

[marcistar]

Marci, do you have any thoughts on the game so far? What do you think of Zyla?

so far i've kinda thought luke seemed a bit off (mostly cuz i dont like his points on val98 very much ), im not sure if hes scum yet, but its a slight lean.
i think you and val98 seem townie.
-
for zyla, im not sure how to read her tbh. (so null LOL) i think i would have to wait for her to post a bit more before i could say
everyone else is same level as zyla rn for me.

[Pavowski]

Normally the 'blowing up nothing into something' bit would ping scum for me, but I just don't think someone whose Topics List has so many games would fall into that trap. I also suspect that their questioning of me was a subtle way to try to sort me, which strikes me as town-like. So if I had to pick I'd give a TL, but everything is like scarcely off of null right now at this stage.

So you'd flag the Luke/Val kerfuffle as both players attempting to sort?

[alstroemerial]

Regarding 82... it seems like such an obvious play and right off the bat that it's almost too over-the-top. So yeah, your interpretation is pretty much right. If Luke was to keep pinging me I'll meta-dive more but that's the sense I have so far. It seems almost more likely that Luke was trying to with Val something similar to what he was trying to do with me: putting a little pressure on and seeing what the reaction is.

Regarding 84, yes, for now...

[Lukewarm]

Hello, hi. I get the feeling that my suspicion on Val have not been understood.

First, I had a RVS-ish vote on their slot:

Spoiler:

I read 25, and none of it seemed serious. I did not take it at face value.

I followed the link to his prior game, and in that game, his first vote was also somewhat non-serious, but it had plenty of things for people in interact with and build the conversation on. I then saw that they explicitly said that their "reason for dressing up an RVS vote in the amount of verbiage I did was to make sure there was at least something substantial to discuss"-- which compared to their first post this game, I felt like it was missing that.

So, a-ha, I spotted a difference between their entrance to that game (where I know they are town) and their entrance to this game (where I do not yet know their alignment)

This was certainly not enough to eliminate anyone, but that is enough for a vote on page 2.
This is the best way I know how to transition from RVS -> Serious discussions. RVS votes (other then maybe the first 2 people in thread) should not actually be completely random. You should be voting for a reason, even if it is a really weak reasons. That lets there be grounds for actual conversation, things for other people to weigh in on, and for you to see how the person will respond

https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=13710
I would recommend people read this (long) post on RVS -- very much liked it, and am trying to incorporate it into my games

But basically, I dropped a "rvs worthy vote" on them to give us something to talk about, and to get their response--- but their response has been highly suspect:

*Claiming that we should already plan on Not_Mafia being the Day 1 elim
*Accusing me of defending Not_Mafia
*And who actually thinks that another player should have done a full meta dive before casting a vote on page 2?

You what? What sort of mafia player tries to make push a meta read on someone without having first actually read the ISO.

^^These are the reasons I am currently suspicious of Val^^

[Val89]

I just want clarify because I feel like I must be misunderstanding something here, your

[Lukewarm]

so far i've kinda thought luke seemed a bit off (mostly cuz i dont like his points on val98 very much)

You said similar things several times throughout our last game together, and we were both town

[Lukewarm]

I just want clarify because I feel like I must be misunderstanding something here, your

Yes?

[Pavowski]

I just want clarify because I feel like I must be misunderstanding something here, your

I just want clarify because I feel like I must be misunderstanding something here, your

Yes?

The misunderstanding was so great it blew his hat off, give 'em a minute

[Val89]

Sorry, I'll try that one again:

I just want clarify because I feel like I must be misunderstanding something here, your claim is that had an RVS-ish vote on my slot after reading 25, which you did no take at face value, but your subsequent vote in 75 was a serious, I'm actually scumleaning this slot, vote because you take my claims that we should already plan on Not_Mafia being the D1 elmin and that you were defending Not_Mafia at face value?

Is that how I am to interpret 86, or am I missing something?

[Lukewarm]

the following discussion is of substance, rather than the usuall RVS crap we throw around for a few pages.

What I am saying is that once you said that you specifically wanted serious discussion, and not "the usual rvs crap" that you were taking part in serious discussions.

Is your current "defense" that despite what you said in 33, you were not actually taking par in "discussions of substance" and I should not be taking anything you say seriously?

[Val89]

For fuller context, here is a little more of the relevant part of 33:

but the argument itself isn't the substance Im hoping to draw - I hope simply that someone takes it as a serious indication of somebodies alignment - either the person I direct the post at, or myself, and that the following discussion is of substance, rather than the usuall RVS crap we throw around for a few pages.

I currently reserve judgement on whether your decision not to quote the operative part of that sentence - that I am hoping someone takes it as a serious indication of someone elses alignment - was deliberate, and if so, for what purpose, until I've had a closer look at your other games.

The "discussions of substance" I am hoping to take part in are those that follow after someone has done as I said I hoped in 33. I'm still not sure if we are in that realm or not with you. I'm not defending anything, I was simply asking, and it looks like I will have to ask you again, if we are to take your 86 as meaning you that claim you didn't take my post 25 at face value, but that you are now taking my statements that you were defending Not_mafia, and that we should lim him today, at face value?

What either circumstance means for your alignment I am unclear, but I thought it would help get a clearer picture if I asked you to clarify which set of circumstances we are actually in before I attempt to make that deduction, or perhap decide it's NAI.

Could you clarify the intent of your 86, please?

[ArcAngel9]

Vote Count 1-2

Portia :

Pavowski :

alstroemerial :

Zyla :

alstroemerial

Lukewarm :

Zyla

Val89 :

Pavowski, Lukewarm

Not_Mafia :

Val89, Umlaut,

Umlaut :

Not_Mafia

marcistar :

Not Voting

: Portia, marcistar

With 9 alive, it takes 5 to eliminate.

Deadline: July 16, Midnight US Eastern Time.

Countdown: (expired on 2021-07-16 12:50:00)

Mod Notes:

Umlaut is on V/LA until Thursday
-

[Lukewarm]

My intent of 86 was to say that the reason I voted you in post 31 was an rvs worthy reason, and I mostly wanted to see how you would respond to the vote. -- But now I am saying that I your response felt scummy.

I am not sure what quoting more of post 33 changes.

My point is that you claimed to prefer serious discussion, and that your intent with your first post was to spark serious discussion. -- Are you now saying that I am wrong to have started taking you seriously after you said that?

Are you saying that after I saw you claim to prefer serious discussion, that I should not have taken you seriously?

[Lukewarm]

To be clear:

--I did not take your Not_Mafia case seriously.

--I did take everything you said after post 33 seriously --- Specifically because in that post you said you prefer "discussions of substance"

[Lukewarm]

And if you are claiming that you were not being serious when you accused me of defending Not_Mafia in 33, when you acted like I should have meta dived you in 41, and that Not_Mafia should be the Day 1 Elim in post 44----

Why did you say that your post was designed to start a discussion of substance AND that it had "achieved just that"

the argument itself isn't the substance Im hoping to draw - I hope simply that someone takes it as a serious indication of somebodies alignment - either the person I direct the post at, or myself, and that the following discussion is of substance, rather than the usuall RVS crap we throw around for a few pages.

And Lo and behold, it has acheived just that.

Is your claim now really that you said the quoted in 33, then none of your posts after it were serious....

You trying acting as though your statements were ones that should not be taken seriously, it a hard pill to swallow ---

This newest angle coming from you really just feels like you are trying to weasel your way out of statements that are now being held against you

[Lukewarm]

I'm gonna take a break before I get full tunnely on Val for this. Everyone else feel free to weigh in, even if just to tell me I am actually a big dum-dum

[Val89]

Thank you. At least we got there in the end.

Quoting more of 33 changes things because, as I said, the operative part of my statement there was that " I hope simply that someone takes it as a serious indication of somebodies alignment...and that the following discussion is of substance". In other words, I consider the discussion that follows from my 'serious-shitpost' as substansive only when someone takes something I say while doing so as being serious.

Honestly, I thought it was self-evident that my statement that you were defending Not_Mafia, or that Not_mafia should be the lim today were as non-serious as the inital post. I read Pav's retoricial question at 70 as inidcation they picked that up, Alstro seems to indicate they thought so in 73 (as well as noting the ambiguity I was feeling about if

you

were taking it seriously also), and I think, but it's a little less clear, that Zyla was saying so as well in 46.

Marci seemed to be taking it at face value in 50, and in fact the only person I wasn't sure about was you, Lukewarm. I took your 32, and your answer to my 37 which mirrored how the discussion went in game 2068 that you had read through the first part of that game, understood and agreed with my intent, and we were basically bantering back and forth. I also took your "Maybe Val is just strange." and piviot to Alstro as confirmation you hadn't really taken me seriously until you came back to it in 86, which is why I've gone to pains since then to clarify the situation.

For the record on my part: I do not think Not_Mafia is actually scum due to any logic I give in 25, I don't think he should be the lim today, and as such at present I would unvote him if another vote came his way, and I don't think Lukewarm was deliberately jumping in to defend Not_Mafia in 31 because they are scum buddies.

Now we know the Lukewarm did take my 33 onwards seriously, we can get to deducing what that means for his alignment. We now have something of substance to discuss - ie: why Lukewarm in particular took me seriously when at least a handful of other players don't appear to have done so - and I consider that job done.

The concenus may well be that it makes Lukewarm townleaning, or that it's NAI, but I'll open up by saying my initial thoughts are that it leans scummy. The first post that Lukewarm indicates they had a perspective switch from "Val isn't serious" to "I should take Val at face value" is post 33, where I imply that I think Lukewarm might be Not_mafia's scum buddy. That to me says Lukewarm is over-the-top sensitive to any suggestion early game they might be scum. If it is

obviously

RVS, fine, but if there is any doubt it might be the start of a serious scumread, or might lead to one, then they want to start laying the narrative that it might be coming from scum early. I can better see why scum would react in such a manner than I can town - while a townie isn't all that worried about about a single player throwing some shade at them on page 2, if that shade causes attention to fall on an actual scum, even if it was accidental on the part of the person throwing it, then that could potentially lead to the scum team going into N1 having lost half their faction - potentially game losing for them.

I know it isn't much in isolation, but it appears out of everything we've got in the thread so far to have the highest chance of actually being alignment indiciative, so I would like to explore this.