Mafiascum.net

↑ pieceofpecanpie wrote:@Apozzle Just wondering, now that you're here and active are you planning on contributing any thought or read?

"Nothing I've said has not been relevant." & "Read what I said when I broke my inactivity streak."

↑ goodmorning wrote:
@Apozzle: When there's someone who's not even posted once, a mere lurker can indeed slide under the radar.

That might be what happened, but it isn't what should have happened. An unconfirmed player is irritating, but nothing can be done about it in the context of the game - all that can be done is request a prod. A player who is confirmed but lurking is different: there are an array of valid actions in reponse.

[The point I was originally making was not about my absence - that was catalytic, but not the focus - but rather about seeming tunneling. Apparent sacrifice of breadth of analysis in favour of depth. A concern of mine about the state of the game at the time. The misinterpretation seems to be that it was some sort of self-deprecating attempt to make it seem like I cared about the fact that I was lurking? Frankly, I don't and I didn't. If I could go back I would do the exact same thing, because I had valid reason to do so. But, fine. People will also interpret what I just said as a similar technique. They will also interpret that previous sentence the same way (and so on). But that is beside the point, and there's not much of use in my continuing attempts to convince people (I suppose the issue is one of self-reference in my original point - intellectually interesting, but not really all that useful in advancing the game)]

↑ Cheery Dog wrote:
Is being creepy a town or scum action? (or null?)

In this case? I'd lean towards that apparent stalkerness being town indicative. That kind of player pursuit feels too extreme for scum action.


The NS affair is a mess. Belisarius, I agree that lynching him now because of his meta will advance the game the least, but if he does have an unpleasant meta, then having him alive as the game draws to a close will not benefit town - it will make analysis more difficult. Later, it might become a good idea to remove him preemptively. I'm not sure what to think of your "other reason".

GM's reasons for voting NS seem relative - I can see why you would have those reasons, but I don't really feel them myself. Except for the active lurking. That is blatant. And my vote isn't doing anything else right now, so maybe it can give NS some attention.

↑ Apozzle wrote:
The NS affair is a mess. Belisarius, I agree that lynching him now because of his meta will advance the game the least, but if he does have an unpleasant meta, then having him alive as the game draws to a close will not benefit town - it will make analysis more difficult. Later, it might become a good idea to remove him preemptively.

If he's scum, lurking won't save him from PoE or being the compromise lynch after a wagon-halting roleclaim.

If he's town, I want his vote in play.

↑ Apozzle wrote:That might be what happened, but it isn't what should have happened. An unconfirmed player is irritating, but nothing can be done about it in the context of the game - all that can be done is request a prod. A player who is confirmed but lurking is different: there are an array of valid actions in reponse.

I don't think it's all that unusual to ignore lurkers as a game is ramping up, especially when there are people participating who are doing scummy things, like active lurking.

↑ Apozzle wrote:the active lurking... is blatant.

Yes.

↑ Apozzle wrote:And my vote isn't doing anything else right now, so maybe it can give NS some attention.

Vote: NS

Good idea!

↑ Belisarius wrote:If he's town, I want his vote in play.

If he's scum, I want him hanged.

Do you consider his current vote pro-town?

↑ Cub Daigoro wrote:Do you consider his current vote pro-town?

Undecided at this time. I don't find it scummy, though.

↑ pieceofpecanpie wrote:we live in an instantaneous age, of internet and magnets and shit.

I love you, man!

↑ Cub Daigoro wrote:

↑ ac1983fan wrote:If NS plays anything like he used to, then well, I don't think anyone can read him.

I'm getting this same message from a lot of people.

So what's the plan, then, folks who are saying this? Lay off him until...? Sounds like just the kind of player to pressure early so we don't get screwed in LYLO.

I don't usually get much of substance done during Day One. I get better on Day Two, after a couple flips.

Here's how it usually happens: Someone miraculously outshines me in the scummy behavior department on Day One, and I get much more active and substantial from Day Two forward. Unless I become Super Townie, I am usually lynched or nightkilled before LyLo.

Generally, if I make it to LyLo alive, I'm either previously-confirmed town or scum.

↑ Belisarius wrote:

↑ Cub Daigoro wrote:
Maybe he's still sleeping.

It's been almost 3 days, sounds about right for a messiah.

Priceless. I hope you stick around for a good long time.

↑ Apozzle wrote:

↑ pieceofpecanpie wrote:...And I watched him scoot around on the site elsewhere at will for those 6 hours as well.

Also, just want to point out that that comes off as

kind of creepy.

Get used to it. Most everyone does it around here (yes, even me).

↑ goodmorning wrote:

And let me break this down, since people are going to be like" but why do you think they're scummy??"
25 is scummy because NS has been around long enough to know that people sometimes do really random stuff D1. This should not confuse him, and I feel like he's playing the "I don't know anything" card early on with it.
37 is scummy because it is completely unhelpful to Town and because he caved to pressure rather than make a fuss.
65 is a little bit scummy just in the way he reacts to Cub; that vote had been on him since the first page and he chose not to address it til then?
Active lurking is rather scummy for obvious reasons.

Post 25 is just opening-game banter (not to mention that I was genuinely confused as to why I would get voted for saying I was confused. Whaaaaa?).

As for Post 37, if you read many games I'm in, it's widely known that I loathe RVS. I try to avoid it whenever possible. Cub pushed me, so I voted him. Simple.

For 65, I'll just post the actual quote here so we all know what's being discussed:

↑ Nobody Special wrote:

↑ Cub Daigoro wrote:

↑ implosion wrote:

↑ Cub Daigoro wrote:Someone's likely to hit scum in RVS. Why not me?

Why not you indeed. Whether or not NS is scum is irrelevant here

...Wut? What could possibly be more relevant?

I just read your iso and failed to come up with any kind of reason to vote me.

Would you [l]ike to provide some reasoning now?

If you notice, I hadn't addressed it before simply because there was never a hint of 'reason' to go with the vote -- I simply figured it was RVS. Or something. Then when Cub says it's all relevant, I question his reasoning. Clear now?


I'm not going to address my post 140 at this time.

↑ Zaicon wrote:

↑ ac1983fan wrote:Zaicon: Could you elaborate on what you "don't like" about POPP's reaction to SD? That's pretty fookin' vague.

I don't like the fact that pieceofpecanpie took the opportunity to accuse SafetyDance of 'jumping off of Nobody Special' when SafetyDance voted for pieceofpecanpie. All he bases that on was the fact that SafetyDance changed his vote from a semi-lurker to pieceofpecanpie. I don't know why he assumes that means SafetyDance's vote for Nobody Special was "meaningless". I also don't know why that's worthy of a vote (nor his later claim of implosion being SafetyDance's partner, which just seems like setting up lynches at this point).

Zaicon, you see popp's reaction as scummy, but don't you also see what SD did?
He changed his vote to popp because some association between him and NS (which is ridiculous in the first place). If he already believes that NS is scum, ockham's razor says that he should vote NS, not popp. Where is the town motivation in that?
I doubt SD would bus popp this early, that fast, so I'm calling SD scum and popp town.

goodmorning, why do you have an obsession with SD?

↑ Belisarius wrote:

↑ Cheery Dog wrote:

↑ Belisarius wrote:
Still don't like the NS wagon; the case on him amounts to "Kill him because META!" It's unalloyed WIFOM.

I thought that was the reason why some people

weren't

voting him.

I read the case on NS as "He has a meta for lurking and being unhelpful, so surely we should policy lynch him on D1" which strikes me as a

horrible

idea. Based on zero other evidence, he is statistically more likely to be town-aligned than scum or SK,

which means his vote will be used for town-aligned reasons

. We might

need

that vote. Secondly, what will a policy lynch on D1 accomplish except to make us go into D2 knowing as little as possible? It'll be D1 all over again. When is lynching someone based

purely

on their meta

ever

a good idea?

Emphasis mine.
I don't think you can draw that conclusion from the premises. Players don't always play in the best interests of their win condition.

↑ Belisarius wrote:

↑ ac1983fan wrote:

↑ Belisarius wrote:
Agreed I've been active lurking pretty bad, for lack of any scumreads that aren't weaker than American beer so far. The "put a lot of lead in the air and see what sticks" technique doesn't work very well for me.

Any that do?

Yes. Townhunting/PoE, eliminating useless lynches like NS's, and one other trick that won't work if I come right out and say what it is.

Townhunting? is that seriously a thing now?

↑ Belisarius wrote:Also, I didn't say I might be sheeping, I said I

was

sheeping but I wasn't sure who. That really should have drawn more fire, people.

ok

↑ Apozzle wrote:

GM's reasons for voting NS seem relative - I can see why you would have those reasons, but I don't really feel them myself. Except for the active lurking. That is blatant. And my vote isn't doing anything else right now, so maybe it can give NS some attention.

Vote: NS

" NS is an easy lynch so vote but I'll act like I don't agree with the reasons to distance myself from the wagon later"

↑ Nobody Special wrote:

↑ Cub Daigoro wrote:

↑ ac1983fan wrote:If NS plays anything like he used to, then well, I don't think anyone can read him.

I'm getting this same message from a lot of people.

So what's the plan, then, folks who are saying this? Lay off him until...? Sounds like just the kind of player to pressure early so we don't get screwed in LYLO.

I don't usually get much of substance done during Day One. I get better on Day Two, after a couple flips.

lies

Well, *I* think I get better. YMMV.

I'm undecided on NS right now. I think he should be our backup lynch, not our primary one.

If we're only lynching for policy, since active lurking is NS's town scum meta, that shouldn't come before another potentially scummier player.

↑ Belisarius wrote:

↑ ac1983fan wrote:

↑ Belisarius wrote:
Agreed I've been active lurking pretty bad, for lack of any scumreads that aren't weaker than American beer so far. The "put a lot of lead in the air and see what sticks" technique doesn't work very well for me.

Any that do?

Yes. Townhunting/PoE, eliminating useless lynches like NS's, and one other trick that won't work if I come right out and say what it is.

So, how's that going fer ye?
Seems like you've been doing a lot of IioA now that you aren't active lurking.


PEdit:

ac1983fan wrote:
Townhunting? is that seriously a thing now?

Yes

↑ Apozzle wrote:
" NS is an easy lynch so vote but I'll act like I don't agree with the reasons to distance myself from the wagon later"

Agreed

↑ Belisarius wrote:Also, I didn't say I might be sheeping, I said I

was

sheeping but I wasn't sure who. That really should have drawn more fire, people.

Nice to know you're finding yourself scummy.
UNVOTE:
VOTE: beli

Slight shopping on everyone is a valid tactic, attempting to reaction test (or at least that's what I think you're doing with that comment) on it when there are already scummy people around just makes it look bad and out of place. It seems like you're playing a scum tactic of gaining some early heat which people forget about on later days.

↑ Belisarius wrote:

↑ Cheery Dog wrote:

↑ pieceofpecanpie wrote:
@Belisarius Who do you want to see a wagon on?

Does wanting to derail a shitwagon that's harmful to town necessarily require knowing exactly who those votes should be switched to? Well, Safety's my strongest scumread, as evinced by my vote. Go to town.

No, not necessarily.

↑ Belisarius wrote:

↑ pieceofpecanpie wrote:
@Cheery You seem to be starting the roll a few thoughts about players around. Are you lining things up to switch votes off Cub, just staying open to possibilities or something else?

Are you advocating tunnelling? Because it looks like you're looking askance at someone taking shots at someone other than their top scumread in a game with up to 3 scum + 1 SK.

Absolutely not. That's self-evident from the question being posed at Cheery and not at my current lynch target.

↑ ac1983fan wrote:

↑ Apozzle wrote:GM's reasons for voting NS seem relative - I can see why you would have those reasons, but I don't really feel them myself. Except for the active lurking. That is blatant. And my vote isn't doing anything else right now, so maybe it can give NS some attention.

Vote: NS

" NS is an easy lynch so vote but I'll act like I don't agree with the reasons to distance myself from the wagon later"

Took the words out of my mouth. Glad that others can read between the lines as well.



That was such a flop of a post. Trim away the fat and there's a stick-thin vote on an easy target.

Tch. NS is an easy vote? Not really. The meta argument makes it significantly harder to lynch him. Also, if you carefully take a few minutes to read those two lines I wrote about GM's reasoning, you might be able to understand what I actually said, instead of making things up or employing esoteric methods of extracting ethereal meaning from the interstices dividing my words. I'm not sure what kind of arcane ritual you gentlemen employed to read that message from what I said, but I can assure you that anything you heard was almost certainly just the wind.

Just wanted to point out that you come off as a try hard academic. Perhaps you could loosen up a little?

I'll try elaborating on the secrets behind our ritual and, if it differs, maybe you could let us in on what you were saying.

ac skipped a bit with that paraphrasing, but from what I understand from complicated words such as "unpleasant meta" and "remove him preemptively" you are proposing a Day 1 policy lynch on NS? (this is where the easy lynch comes from) I feel where this is drawing criticism is that your language use seems to draw some sort of conflicted position, but you vote him anyway (this is where the distancing part comes in). Does that sound reasonable?

So rather than look at what current people have been posting and whatever inherent scumminess can be derived from them you feel the strongest approach for town is to use their first lynch on a known lurker who has established no real connections or discussion with anyone?

Sorry, prod-dodger this cold morning!

↑ Nobody Special wrote:I don't usually get much of substance done during Day One. I get better on Day Two, after a couple flips.

Here's how it usually happens: Someone miraculously outshines me in the scummy behavior department on Day One, and I get much more active and substantial from Day Two forward.

You seem very self-aware of your meta. Have you ever thought about, I don't know, not being scummy on Day One? Is it intentional?

I'm pretty sure everyone gets better after Day One. That's the nature of the game.

↑ Nobody Special wrote:I'm not going to address my post 140 at this time.

When can we expect you to address it?

↑ Apozzle wrote:Except for the active lurking. That is blatant.

Seemed pretty straightforward to me.

PPP, what's your opinion of my push on NS?

↑ Edosurist wrote:He changed his vote to popp because some association between him and NS (which is ridiculous in the first place). If he already believes that NS is scum, ockham's razor says that he should vote NS, not popp. Where is the town motivation in that?

I agree with this.


VOTE: SafetyDance

L-2, I think

↑ Edosurist wrote:
So, how's that going fer ye?
Seems like you've been doing a lot of IioA now that you aren't active lurking.

Not willing to vote NS, Cub, goodmorning, ac1983fan, or PPP; NS I've already discussed (By the way, that's analysis, not IIoA -- I've told you exactly why NS is a shit D1 lynch). Cub, goodmorning, and ac have provided transparency in their thought processes and I can follow their reasoning, which is certainly not the case for everyone. I'm happy with PPP's responses to me.

I'm liking the shallower lynch pool, and I'm betting I'll like it even more D2 and on.

↑ Cheery Dog wrote:
Nice to know you're finding yourself scummy.
UNVOTE:
VOTE: beli

Slight shopping on everyone is a valid tactic, attempting to reaction test (or at least that's what I think you're doing with that comment) on it when there are already scummy people around just makes it look bad and out of place. It seems like you're playing a scum tactic of gaining some early heat which people forget about on later days.

This is terrible. First you say I'm finding myself scummy, then you say it's a reaction test. You can't have it both ways. Which is it?

I have one scumspect I have any confidence out of, when there may be up to 4 people who need to die. In this circumstance, how is a reaction test in any way inappropriate?

↑ pieceofpecanpie wrote:Just wanted to point out that you come off as a try hard academic. Perhaps you could loosen up a little?

+1.

The impression I get from using a lot of words to say very little is "Hey everyone, I've got something to hide, guess what it is!"

If I can't have Safety, I'll settle for Apozzle.

↑ Edosurist wrote:He changed his vote to popp because some association between him and NS (which is ridiculous in the first place).

I agree that it would be "ridiculous". But I'm not convinced this was his only reason for his vote (if that statement was even serious in the first place):

↑ Zaicon wrote:As for his vote on you, no, I don't think the fact that you FoS'd instead of voted was a good reason by itself to vote for you. But since it can easily be argued that he did that to see how you reacted to it (which is supported by his FoS --> vote change, which I think was intentional as well), and his reasoning in post 124 also making sense, I don't have any particular reason to believe he had scummy motivations for doing that.

↑ Edosurist wrote:If he already believes that NS is scum

Why do you think that? I only see him voting for NS due to lurking reasons (anti-town, not scum, and there is a difference with what you are claiming).

↑ Cub Daigoro wrote:

↑ Nobody Special wrote:I don't usually get much of substance done during Day One. I get better on Day Two, after a couple flips.

Here's how it usually happens: Someone miraculously outshines me in the scummy behavior department on Day One, and I get much more active and substantial from Day Two forward.

You seem very self-aware of your meta. Have you ever thought about, I don't know, not being scummy on Day One? Is it intentional?

It's not intentional -- I've taken so much heat for it that if it were, I'd've certainly changed by now. It's just how I play. I can't seem to get much traction Day One. There are rare exceptions.

↑ Cub Daigoro wrote:

↑ Nobody Special wrote:I'm not going to address my post 140 at this time.

When can we expect you to address it?

Certainly not prior to the start of Day Two.

↑ Apozzle wrote:I'm not sure what kind of arcane ritual you gentlemen employed to read that message from what I said, but I can assure you that anything you heard was almost certainly just the wind.

It's the arcane ritual of being analytical
It's understandable that you haven't heard of it - it's not in the standard Pathfinder spell set and even when GM's add it to the game it can only be learnt from scrolls.

↑ Belisarius wrote:This is terrible. First you say I'm finding myself scummy, then you say it's a reaction test. You can't have it both ways. Which is it?

I have one scumspect I have any confidence out of, when there may be up to 4 people who need to die. In this circumstance, how is a reaction test in any way inappropriate?

The apparent rection test was the slight sheeping of everyone (You've got your own confidence in that wagon yourself then now? Can you re-explain it for me?), you then didn't get any reactions so you had to call yourself scummy since noone else to draw the heat that would likely vanish since a one-time group sheeping is not a case on a person.

SafetyDance (5) Messiah, Belisarius, pieceofpecanpie, Edosurist, Cub Diagoro
Nobody Special (2) goodmorning, Apozzle
Cub Diagoro (2) Nobody Special, implosion
pieceofpecanpie (2) SafetyDance, Zaicon
Belisarius (2) ac1983fan, Cheery Dog
Cheery Dog (0)
implosion (0)
goodmorning (0)
Zaicon (0)
Edosurist (0)
Apozzle (0)
ac1983fan (0)
Messiah (0)
Not Voting: Nobody!