In post 785, ArcAngel9 wrote:Vis, this game needs moving..
I am okay to shift this wagon to GM if lynching Z is the problem. i haven't changed my reads on both of them
yet
.
Yet?
btw this kind of hedge pings very loudly to me. Where I grew up playing mafia we eventually lynched that kind of wishy-washiness out of each other.
you're in a different site and people on this site play different.
It's not the words, it's the intent behind them. Of course a town player is going to be open to new evidence unless they've caught a bad case of tunnel-itis. But, town players think about their convictions, reads and intents as they are in the moment, not what they might become in some amorphous future with yet unseen and unanticipated evidence.
Posted: Tue Apr 16, 2013 2:09 pm
by goodmorning
In post 822, fferyllt wrote:yabbut we've been waiting around forever for you to show up. Watching paint dry would be high drama after the last week.
OH GIRL
SAY IT
@VE: I don't know, should you? Fe doesn't really strike me as being in the game. What's the phrase I used last time I saw that? "In a different plane of existence" I think it might have been.
Posted: Tue Apr 16, 2013 2:11 pm
by VisceraEyes
I'm asking you because I'm certainly not going to vote for myself LMAO
Fe is....whom?
Posted: Tue Apr 16, 2013 2:12 pm
by fferyllt
Fe = Eye Urn
Posted: Tue Apr 16, 2013 2:13 pm
by VisceraEyes
Ah...you said that already.
Yeah well he's in the game because he's voting for me - in this universe.
Posted: Tue Apr 16, 2013 2:16 pm
by goodmorning
Spoiler: case on Fro
For a start, the whole 35-overreaction thing that never got resolved. No, "It was sarcasm" is not a resolution. 167 struck me as incredibly scummy, mostly because it attempted to use my own language in a dishonest way in an attempt to ridicule and avoid my point. It is also scummy because he completely failed to answer my questions.
As I mention in 182, "he asks a question or makes an accusation, I respond, then he never mentions it again." Giving up like that indicates no real concern over answers; it's questioning/arguing for the sake of appearance only.
My p.10 response to Fro in 313 has numerous rebuttals to his arguments, which is relevant to this case because most of his arguments are misreps or avoid the real question.
Also my response to him in [post349[/post], especially this:
In post 313, goodmorning wrote:Even if dishonesty were defensive, which I'm not going to get into because it's largely irrelevant, this is not an answer. It is not even close to an answer. When I say something like "you're being defensive" and can't provide any examples of such, I expect to be laughed at all the way to the gallows. I don't sit there smugly and expect to be lauded for making claims I can't back up.
I can back it up. Your dishonesty1 consists in how you spin narratives post-hoc2, you may be lying to yourself3 but it's for others to judge alongside me if you're talking consistently and making coherent cases, or not. I've said what I meant, that you continue to misrepresent it is dishonest4, that you interpret into stuff things which never happened is dishonest5, and you use of terminology in order to slant the narrative is also dishonest6. If that's how you are irl, then 7
1. I did not ask for instances of dishonesty. I asked for instances of defensiveness.
1a. Come to think of it, you really didn't give any instances of dishonesty either.
2. "Post-hoc" is defined (second definition) by Merriam-Webster as "formulated after the fact". Provide an example of me doing this.
3. I am neither lying to myself nor to the rest of the playerlist.
4. Does it ever get boring to repeat your unfounded statements?
5. Much of playing Mafia is the individual's interpretation of others' actions. There is nothing inherently dishonest about personal interpretations.
6. Terminology. Really. I'm not the one slinging Latin here.
"Slanting the narrative?" Really? History (and narrative) is written by the victors. At the moment I'm supposedly a scumread of a high number of people, I don't think I'd have a chance of "slanting the narrative" if I tried (and I wouldn't, because I prefer that people not just blindly sheep)
7. Go fuck yourself.
This should be clear enough, but it probably won't be. They will say "but how does any of that make him Scum?" It's because in every one of those posts I continued to point out his blatant misreps but never got answers.
Uh, my current lynchpool would be Z, Fe, and one of {AA9, Mac}, I haven't decided yet.
Posted: Tue Apr 16, 2013 2:17 pm
by goodmorning
In post 827, VisceraEyes wrote:I'm asking you because I'm certainly not going to vote for myself LMAO
I think there's much less chance of a lynch on you than on Z, AA9, or even me, if that's what you're asking.
Posted: Tue Apr 16, 2013 2:24 pm
by Eye Urn
GM, is there a large part of original material in 830 that got imbedded in a quote?
Posted: Tue Apr 16, 2013 2:26 pm
by VisceraEyes
The more AA lets us argue amongst ourselves while she's still on the table for lynch, the more suspicious I get of her. I don't find the point about # of SE/IC on the scumteam to be alignment indicative at all, but the "no u" phase as feryl put it looks different now that I read it with the knowledge that she basically about-faced re: my slot.
Posted: Tue Apr 16, 2013 2:33 pm
by VisceraEyes
Okay fine. Fuck it. I'll reread the whole game. Like, I was gonna save that for the night-phase because of how close we are to the deadline (relying on VCA and my initial objective impressions to get me to that point) but whatever, I can read the thread tonight and comment tomorrow before deadline.
Gah, can't slack ANYWHERE.
Posted: Tue Apr 16, 2013 2:35 pm
by Eye Urn
Changes to z7's scumometer:
Initial reads -> 637 First use of scumometer. Consistent.
644 -> 652 Mac, Deras and I move down for inactivity, Revenus moves up after giving content. He talk in the post about not liking GM, and she moved down. Consistent.
701 -> 707 VisceraEyes makes a complete lack of case against him, and moves all the move to the bottom. Consistent.
The 644 -> 652 movement might be slightly strange and not fully explained detail by detail, but there's something there. I was incorrect about it being "continually updated". I admit that I didn't actually count the number of changes before, but had remembered that he had changed things at least twice, and with reason. But that doesn't really change the fact that it's a null point.
Posted: Tue Apr 16, 2013 2:40 pm
by goodmorning
In post 832, Eye Urn wrote:GM, is there a large part of original material in 830 that got imbedded in a quote?
No, that quote was included on purpose.
Changing things twice is not a lot.
Posted: Tue Apr 16, 2013 2:42 pm
by VisceraEyes
I still think it's superfluous and fluffy. It serves no purpose...and because it changes on a whim it doesn't really tell us anything about where he stands at all. It's basically a tl;dr for his post. Fluffy shit like that I find scummy - clearly you don't. But how does that make me scum?
I don't understand at all why anyone is following your lead here, and it's pretty telling that the four people I think least of are voting for "Fropome" here.
For some reason, this is the phrase that has pissed me off the most in my entire Mafia career.
Are you taking it that I meant "the four people I think the least of"? I meant the 4 player-slots I think the least townie of. I certainly didn't mean to actually piss someone off.
I don't understand at all why anyone is following your lead here, and it's pretty telling that the four people I think least of are voting for "Fropome" here.
For some reason, this is the phrase that has pissed me off the most in my entire Mafia career.
Are you taking it that I meant "the four people I think the least of"? I meant the 4 player-slots I think the least townie of. I certainly didn't mean to actually piss someone off.
In post 832, Eye Urn wrote:GM, is there a large part of original material in 830 that got imbedded in a quote?
No, that quote was included on purpose.
Ok, I went back and read all of 349 and it was there, just not where I expected it. Sorry.
Posted: Tue Apr 16, 2013 2:54 pm
by TraceyLyn11
VOTE COUNT 1.13
[L-2] Z7-852: (goodmorning, fferyllt, ArcAngel9)
[L-5] fferyllt:
[L-5] Deras:
[L-4] ArcAngel9: (Deras)
[L-5] Mac:
[L-5] Eye Urn:
[L-3] VisceraEyes: (Revenus, Eye Urn)
[L-5] Revenus:
[L-4] goodmorning: (Z7-852)
Not Voting:
2 (Mac, VisceraEyes)
With nine alive, it takes five to lynch.
Day One's deadline: April 18, 2013 CST or in (expired on 2013-04-18 20:45:00).
V/LA: Mac (a couple of days)
Posted: Tue Apr 16, 2013 2:58 pm
by VisceraEyes
What a strange triangle of strangitude going on between GM/AA/Z7. Any two of them are willing to lynch the last. That's important somehow. :/
Yeah, I'm fully rereading tonight guys.
Posted: Tue Apr 16, 2013 2:59 pm
by fferyllt
Seeing my name in that bandwagon freaks me out.
Posted: Tue Apr 16, 2013 3:00 pm
by VisceraEyes
Yeah, I pulled out. Not the most effective method, but it's worked so far. *shrug*
We'll see what a reread brings.
Posted: Tue Apr 16, 2013 3:00 pm
by fferyllt
UNVOTE: Z7-852
Posted: Tue Apr 16, 2013 3:01 pm
by Deras
In post 800, Eye Urn wrote:I pretty much don't see me, Revenus, or Deras voting for "Fropome", so you're going to have to get Mac.
What makes you think Rev or me wouldn't vote Frop, or that Mac would?
That said, I agree with you in most things, GM seems to be going after Frop, while VE seems to be going after Z, neither is taking into account the whole slot imo.
This really bothers me considering that back when Casey was all "I'll give you reads laters, lol nope", GM was trying to deflect attention from him, and I always felt a bit suspicious about it. Then VE comes to support the bandwagon GM is pushing. One of the things I have against this GM/VE scum partners theory is that it would've just been easier to lynch AA9, but maybe they're saving her for lynch or lose? (which, if she's town, wouldn't be a bad idea, considering the way she's been playing). OR, it's VE/AA9 and VE just did the save of the game getting AA9 out of the fire.
My current scumpile would be GM, VE and AA9, with an empashis on a GM/VE partnership.
All in all, and since VE is the closest to go, I'll
Vote: VisceraEyes
Posted: Tue Apr 16, 2013 3:01 pm
by VisceraEyes
See this is why I was worried. LMAO
*sigh*
Please don't hammer until I've reread.
Posted: Tue Apr 16, 2013 3:02 pm
by fferyllt
I do not like the VE bandwagon one teensy tinesy bit.
Posted: Tue Apr 16, 2013 3:05 pm
by Deras
In post 848, fferyllt wrote:I do not like the VE bandwagon one teensy tinesy bit.
I'm responding to how quick VE and GM almost got Z lynched. GM even asked for a hammer back in 755 and 756, before Z could respond, or half the game post.
7
