MAD MAX: GAME OVER

[insertnamehere]

Plus, I already responded to his death here:

Epignosis went out like he played: frustratingly. RIP, and I wish you elected to answer a single question before you left this mortal coil. Guess it doesn't particularly matter now.

There ya go.

Now onto Rico's text wall.

Oh, so that eulogy was your way of addressing Epi's death, so now you don't have to analyze it at all, because you already addressed it, in a way that says nothing about the game.

I'm voting insertnamehere.

What do you want from me, Sloonei? Epi's death seemed kind of odd and random, and I don't like how it's seemingly put a larger target on me and Zebra's back than Scotty's mislynch has on any of his voters. Of course, because that epitaph was written right after the reveal of his death, I didn't know how it would affect me. I didn't expect people to make an absurd logical leap because of it, and I don't think there's a burden of proof on me to somehow "make up" for just wanting a simple answer from the dearly departed.

[Sloonei]

And while you're at it, address the point I was actually making which is that you denied calling Epi mafia just a little while after announcing that he was one of the two "worse" looking players on the entire roster of players in this game.

[Sloonei]

Plus, I already responded to his death here:

Epignosis went out like he played: frustratingly. RIP, and I wish you elected to answer a single question before you left this mortal coil. Guess it doesn't particularly matter now.

There ya go.

Now onto Rico's text wall.

Oh, so that eulogy was your way of addressing Epi's death, so now you don't have to analyze it at all, because you already addressed it, in a way that says nothing about the game.

I'm voting insertnamehere.

What do you want from me, Sloonei? Epi's death seemed kind of odd and random, and I don't like how it's seemingly put a larger target on me and Zebra's back than Scotty's mislynch has on any of his voters. Of course, because that epitaph was written right after the reveal of his death, I didn't know how it would affect me. I didn't expect people to make an absurd logical leap because of it, and I don't think there's a burden of proof on me to somehow "make up" for just wanting a simple answer from the dearly departed.

You're playing it off in this post as if your pointless little eulogy is in some way an adequate response to or analysis of Epi's death. I want you to make an effort to analyze the game, not just say "Oh yeah, I already acknowledged that Epi's dead."

[Dom]

MP, you've yet to set a coherent voice this game. You are doing whatever is convenient in the moment. You are buddying to me. I am suspciious of this.

I do not like the way Dom has asserted that MP is buddying him just because he's shaded in green on his rainbow.

Go on....



INH-- where'd you get the idea of votes being forced?

[Sloonei]

MP, you've yet to set a coherent voice this game. You are doing whatever is convenient in the moment. You are buddying to me. I am suspciious of this.

I do not like the way Dom has asserted that MP is buddying him just because he's shaded in green on his rainbow.

Go on....



INH-- where'd you get the idea of votes being forced?

If listing you as a town read qualifies as "buddying" then he just "buddied" half the players in the game. By the same logic, he is distancing himself from all the players he shaded orange. That's not how the game works. Not every read is buddying or distancing.

[motel room]

They didn't spend the whole night accusing him, and the original accusation (from INH) came very shortly after the Day 1 deadline, presumably before a kill would have been decided upon. When Epi continually responded (much to their frustration), what choice would they have had but to continue engaging him? If they went silent it would have looked like hollow accusations. Plus, they get standard townie points.

This is where I see mental gymnastics. I think you're making a logical leap to assume Zebra and INH didn't want Epignosis to respond to them at all, and when his responses were curt it sort of left them with no choice but to press the issue (if they're townies).

Even if you believe Epignosis did nothing suspicious, would you at least agree that his answers to those two weren't substantive?

link: those are the people. Them peeps.

I do not think they did not want Epi to respond to them. I just think that it's not safe to assume they're town because they carried on a conversation with him during the night. Once INH had accused Epi, the discussion about it would carry on as long as Epi was engaging them. And it did. They lost interest when they weren't getting the answers they wanted out of him. His answers were not substantive, no, but I don't see that as being out of the ordinary for Epi. He saw it as a ridiculous accusation and responded ridiculously.

But anyway, the content of their (INH & zebra's) responses to Epi isn't a concern to me. I am only trying to refute the claim that they get a town lean for accusing Epi during the night that he was killed. I don't think the actual events of the night are substantive enough to do that.

Adding to this, I agree its not a stretch to start a convo with someone you're planning to nightkill to look like its a surprise when they cark it - back in RYM days crystalbird did it in one of the most phoned-in contributions I've seen and it saved him. Or her or whatever.

Compare instertname's convo with Epi to this one

Nobody is an ideal vote Day 1.

Do you believe my last minute switch is an important topic going into Day 2?

It's worth discussing. Scotty was the lynch, we know his alignment, and so anything relevant to Scotty is worth discussing.

You've still not answered the question. Your posts on this page have no function. You specifically elected to take your vote off of Scotty and then you placed it on sanmateo. You must have thus felt that sanmateo was "closer" to ideal than Scotty was as a voting option. Describe the thought process that took you there.

where jjj looks to me like he wants something in return, an explanation of a thought process not chatter.

[motel room]

I am unamused by MacDougall's current vote. He joined the early Rico pile to give it a big lead in the tally, and that alone has the potential to drive the eventual lynch. Late arrivals and unmotivated townies tend to just join the heap later in the day, and as it stands right now Rico is a high probability victim of that trend.

Mac's reasoning is weak, in my opinion. It's less about trying to figure out Rico's behavior and more about condemning him for it.

Mac likes weird vote patterns he can point at later for a laugh.

[insertnamehere]

TO THE TUNE OF:

[insertnamehere]

Your analysis strikes me as being contrived and just there for the sake of appearing to work things out. I don't think the "conclusions" you draw are sincere.

...as if your pointless little eulogy is in some way an adequate response to or analysis of Epi's death. I want you to make an effort to analyze the game...

...I don't think that analysis is genuine, conclusive, convincing, or anything, really. It's just there. It's words.

He doesn't appear the least bit interested in actually addressing motel room's concerns and is just paying lip service until he can move on.

Oh, so that eulogy was your way of addressing Epi's death, so now you don't have to analyze it at all, because you already addressed it, in a way that says nothing about the game.

INH in this game is just a hype man for other people's suspicions.

Your post did not really bring anything new to what Epi said, so it came off as a long-winded piggybacking of somebody else's theory. Echoing his thoughts back at him, disguised as new content.

I'm also not liking the lack of effort you put into responding here. I don't think this was too difficult a thing to figure out, but your two posts here indicate a near-refusal to engage in a discussion.

Yeah, I'm losing my edge
I'm losing my edge
The new posters are coming up from behind
I'm losing my edge
I'm losing my edge to the kids from RateYourMusic and from MafiaUniverse
I'm losing my edge to the posters whose usernames I see when they get on the boards
I'm losing my edge to the Internet seekers who can tell me GTH reads on every player on Day 0 in a 50 player game
I'm losing my edge
To all the kids with novelty gamestyles and in-jokes that I'm not aware of
I'm losing my edge to the detail-orientated amateur analysts with their intentional interrogational rudeness

But I was there
I used to play on Lostpedia and RevolutionMafia
I had played with everyone
I was there in the 2013 Game of Champions, back when DH and Flyin' High were still playing
I was there when SD and MP were deciding what colors to make the message boards
I told them: "Don't make it red and black, it'll be a total eyesore."

But I'm losing my edge to more insightful people
With better deduction skills and more posts
And they're actually really, really nice

I'm losing my edge

I heard you have a playstyle that can tell with a 100% certainty who in a game of mafia is scum within five posts. I heard that you made 100 posts per hour in the latest Turf War game, whatever that was. I heard that in your last game you accused someone directly in every single one of your posts, that no one else even suspected before, and you were right every single time. I heard that in your last game, you didn't even quote a single person because you had such original suspicions that nobody else even slightly influenced. I heard that your first post in the last 40-player game you played was a rainbow list of every single player, and you were right about every single one. I heard that you've found a way to ensure that the civilians win every single time: they just need to listen to you.

I hear you're ignoring any civilians you lynch because it's part of your playstyle that tells you exactly who's good and bad. You want to make a computer program.

I hear that you think that any people who don't post what you subjectively deem to be "big opinions" must be scum
I hear that you think that any people who try to steer the thread in a certain direction that you disagree with must be scum

I hear that every single mafia suspicion you have is way more original, authentic, and correct than every single mafia suspicion that I have.

But have you seen my banners?

You don't know who is really scum
You don't know who is really scum
You don't know who is really scum
You don't know who is really scum
You don't know who is really scum
You don't know who is really scum
You don't know who is really scum
You don't know who is really scum
You don't know who is really scum
You don't know who is really scum
You don't know who is really scum
You don't know who is really scum
You don't know who is really scum
You don't know who is really scum

[motel room]

Curious to see what Zebra and INH have to say now that Epi was killed by mafia. And highly unlikely, in a speed game, that mafia would kill one of their own night 1. So....wanting responses there.

Glad Epi is dead. I was gut feeling him as bad and this makes my life easier.

Someone tl;dr me for day/night 1.

So, a civ is very likely dead and you are glad about it? Hrm.

Oh no.

Did you get the responses you wanted for the first post there LoRab? What were you after from that second post?

[Sloonei]

What is your strategy, INH?

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Okay, INH is doing that thing where he pretends other people have some kind of hyper-arrogant strategy when it's actually him who can't stop condemning people for the way they play.

Seen him do it multiple times as a townie and not as a baddie. He was semi-critical as a baddie in Psych, but not so directly and not to the same extent.

[motel room]

Regarding motel room:

This isn't a strong read, but it's something that make me think more highly of him than the average participant might. In our RYM days, motel room was always one to heavily scrutinize the details of my posts, I think stemming from a confrontation we had in a game in which I was bad and got him mislynched. He knows that when I am bad I have the ability to generate "objective information" to incriminate people even though they're innocent, and I think he is showing his wariness of that in this post:

Actually now that I think of it, this incident is rather similar to what happened in Red vs. Blue -- Scotty made a misstep on Day 1 by providing an inconsistent read relative to Epignosis (either his own votes or someone's votes for him, I can't recall exactly), and Epignosis (his partner) helped lynch him for it. I'm not saying this is necessarily a bus job, but rather that there's a recent precedent for a baddie Scotty to do something like this.

Expanding on this parallel:

The following post is from Red vs. Blue, not Mad Max:

Spoiler: show

Epi? He's Epi. I don't see anything out of the ordinary with Epi. Yet. Why does he have 2 votes?

MM- wow this guy I actually read...as good this game. I don't know what it is honestly. He's not as zany, he's more direct in his accusations. It's just atypical Mm day 1 behavior, and I'm liking it I think. Not that I don't like silly Mm behavior, but that I also like this guy as well. Enough so that I'm not gonn vote him today.

You don't know why I have two votes. MM is one of those votes, and you say he was direct in his accusations. Can you explain why MM voted for me?

Scotty goofed in that game by putting two reads together that weren't very compatible (he liked Metalmarsh, but not the votes on Epignosis, one of which was Metalmarsh). In this game he seems to have done something similar: he doesn't like Elohcin or Rico as much, but thinks Epignosis is steering the thread the wrong direction for suspecting the same two people. Incompatible.

This is so early for Facts.

I think what he was implying here is that on Day 1, seeing this kind of material from me made him feel like he had to prod me about it. "This is so early for facts" evidences a mindset in which part of him worried I was putting semi-relevant "objective evidence" into the thread to promote a mislynch.

And that's me saying a whole lot about six words.

That's about the long and short of it. Objectivity is easy to hide behind, and it was Day 1.

[motel room]

What is your strongest read at the moment, considering that you haven't fully caught up?

Baddie Rico with potential as Mac temmie.

Trying to figure an angle where you think this, you ask mac to team up, you vote the same way as mac seems to be voting, and it be but its probably just a bunch of stuff instead.

[motel room]

If you are planning on pushing my policy lynch again I am going to vote for you. The game has progressed beyond day 1. Policy lynches are stupid now and choosing to pursue mine would be indicative of no intention to contribute as a town and on day 2 making no effort to find baddies is the best reason we will find to lynch anyone.

Did I say I am?

You've got nothing to fret about anymore, you can kill whomever you like now, nobody gives a damn.

What a hollow finger-waggy statement to make, right after the very post in which I clearly stated I would focus on proper leads.

Yeah this doesnt fit, especially the "you can kill whomever you like now, nobody gives a damn" bit, cos that drops the policy lynch part and just says scum.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

However, I don't agree with JJJ and his vote for me. Epi said it himself that he had no reason for voting/suspecting me.

One of the reasons you've gotten the attention of Neil Hartley for the wrong reasons is that you keep attributing my suspicion of you to Epignosis. Don't get me wrong, Epi is a top gentleman. He knows his stuff. You're talking to Neil though. You know, the main event? The man under the spotlight with the microphone who's been crooning the evening away so divinely? You're talking to me, not Epignosis.

[motel room]

MP, you've yet to set a coherent voice this game. You are doing whatever is convenient in the moment. You are buddying to me. I am suspciious of this.

I do not like the way Dom has asserted that MP is buddying him just because he's shaded in green on his rainbow.

I'm still weirded out by how quickly MP put me as town too, ftr.

[a2thezebra]

I'm just going to say this: Ricochet might be my top town read. I don't understand the suspicion of him at all. It's a square circle.

Surely you're being hyperbolic here. There's no way you really don't understand what makes him suspicious.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I'm just going to say this: Ricochet might be my top town read. I don't understand the suspicion of him at all. It's a square circle.

Surely you're being hyperbolic here. There's no way you really don't understand what makes him suspicious.

I am being serious. The case against him to me has looked like nonsense. Obviously I can be wrong, but I don't get it.

[a2thezebra]

motel room, who is bad?

[a2thezebra]

I'm just going to say this: Ricochet might be my top town read. I don't understand the suspicion of him at all. It's a square circle.

Surely you're being hyperbolic here. There's no way you really don't understand what makes him suspicious.

I am being serious. The case against him to me has looked like nonsense. Obviously I can be wrong, but I don't get it.

I simply don't believe you, I think you're being contrarian. If you disagreed with it that would be one thing but don't tell me it's nonsense when it's perfectly understandable.

[motel room]

Ok some stuff.

I don't understand Rico's motivation, why he's so invested anti-mac. I don't get why he would do his Day 1 as scum, but I don't get why he would continue it Day 2 as town.

I like sloonei, jjj, dom. I think I like zebra and mac. I'm cool to vote instername, movingpictures, or lorab. I don't know enough about Elo or how she plays but I see she's jjj's main target atm and need to get a stance going. I also see Glorfindel is a person on the tally. And SVS.

I need to do work shit now. Like an idiot.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I simply don't believe you, I think you're being contrarian. If you disagreed with it that would be one thing but don't tell me it's nonsense when it's perfectly understandable.

He's been accused of trying to create a distraction -- this attack is bunk far more often than it is correct in my experience. I view it the same way I view people calling roleplay suspicious. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of what drives players to behave off-kilter.

He's been accused of employing WIFOM -- I don't think that's even true. I see no WIFOM in his play. I only see salt, and the reason for that salt is plainly evident.

He's been accused of being needlessly antagonistic -- just like he was in his most recent game as a townie.

I don't get it.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I don't understand Rico's motivation, why he's so invested anti-mac. I don't get why he would do his Day 1 as scum, but I don't get why he would continue it Day 2 as town.

That's just it. He didn't continue it Day 2 as town. He literally said he was looking to generate new reads and then Mac gave him shit.

He was anti-Mac on Day 1 because Mac killed him in Romance of the Three Kingdoms just because he was Rico. Rico took issue with that and it's bled into this game. That's why I've been calling him salty.

[a2thezebra]

I simply don't believe you, I think you're being contrarian. If you disagreed with it that would be one thing but don't tell me it's nonsense when it's perfectly understandable.

He's been accused of trying to create a distraction -- this attack is bunk far more often than it is correct in my experience. I view it the same way I view people calling roleplay suspicious. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of what drives players to behave off-kilter.

He's been accused of employing WIFOM -- I don't think that's even true. I see no WIFOM in his play. I only see salt, and the reason for that salt is plainly evident.

He's been accused of being needlessly antagonistic -- just like he was in his most recent game as a townie.

I don't get it.

I haven't followed his recent games, but it's ludicrous even for someone who reads him as town to suggest that there's no WIFOM in his play. What about his inconsistency in advocating for a policy lynch of Mac while at other times expressing legitimate suspicion of him? Are you actually saying that he can't decide whether or not he suspects Mac yet continues to be extremely vocal about him all the same? If not, then the only alternative is WIFOM.

It's true that the distraction accusation doesn't have a fantastic track record (I'm often the victim of it myself) - which is why I try not to throw it out unless I'm sure that it's accurate, and I think Rico's play here is one such case. A simple distinction that you can make in determining whether or not the distraction accusation holds weight is to ask yourself: Is what they're doing generating productive content or unproductive content? Most of the time when the distraction accusation is "bunk" it's because it's being directed at a player that's simply using unusual tactics to hunt baddies or back them into a corner. In Rico's case, however, there's just no justifying that he would not only advocate a policy lynch of Mac but confront and attack people that weren't fully on board unless he was in fact trying to prevent town from being productive. He's changing it up now because he doesn't have a choice.

Now you can disagree with everything in this post, but it's not nonsense and you do get it. Please stop pretending not to just for effect.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Rico made a large post opening this day phase which ended with this paragraph:

I don't have other "online activities" anymore, so I may well work on picking up some leads. Assuming two out of every three new posts of mine won't need to be further defending, for an opportunity that was entirely wasted on D1, supported by nobody except one other person, "distracting" nobody except two voters from pursuing and locking on their own leads for that Day. Much manipulation. Clever baddie, I must be.

The highlighted portion evidences his intent to get busy. He made no comment about continuing his MacDougal vendetta; he only defended himself against continued accusations related to it. Then, about 25 minutes later Mac made the next post:

If you are planning on pushing my policy lynch again I am going to vote for you. The game has progressed beyond day 1. Policy lynches are stupid now and choosing to pursue mine would be indicative of no intention to contribute as a town and on day 2 making no effort to find baddies is the best reason we will find to lynch anyone.

Mac's comment has nothing to do with anything Rico said; it's evident to me that he didn't read Rico's post thoroughly before saying this. That suggests to me that Mac doesn't genuinely care what Rico is saying and is instead working an agenda -- one that I don't like.

[a2thezebra]

Rico made a large post opening this day phase which ended with this paragraph:

I don't have other "online activities" anymore, so I may well work on picking up some leads. Assuming two out of every three new posts of mine won't need to be further defending, for an opportunity that was entirely wasted on D1, supported by nobody except one other person, "distracting" nobody except two voters from pursuing and locking on their own leads for that Day. Much manipulation. Clever baddie, I must be.

The highlighted portion evidences his intent to get busy. He made no comment about continuing his MacDougal vendetta; he only defended himself against continued accusations related to it. Then, about 25 minutes later Mac made the next post:

If you are planning on pushing my policy lynch again I am going to vote for you. The game has progressed beyond day 1. Policy lynches are stupid now and choosing to pursue mine would be indicative of no intention to contribute as a town and on day 2 making no effort to find baddies is the best reason we will find to lynch anyone.

Mac's comment has nothing to do with anything Rico said; it's evident to me that he didn't read Rico's post thoroughly before saying this. That suggests to me that Mac doesn't genuinely care what Rico is saying and is instead working an agenda -- one that I don't like.

I'm with you on this post until the underlined portion. To me applying Occam's Razor to this would indicate that Mac's simply tired of Rico's shit and isn't bothering to read his posts anymore for that reason.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I haven't followed his recent games, but it's ludicrous even for someone who reads him as town to suggest that there's no WIFOM in his play. What about his inconsistency in advocating for a policy lynch of Mac while at other times expressing legitimate suspicion of him? Are you actually saying that he can't decide whether or not he suspects Mac yet continues to be extremely vocal about him all the same? If not, then the only alternative is WIFOM.

He doesn't continue it, first of all. That's bullshit and I don't know why people keep saying it.

On Day 1 I don't think he was inconsistent and I wouldn't really care if he was. He was focused on the policy and not on the actual behavior of the player. That's not WIFOM. I mean technically anything can be perceived as WIFOM in a certain light, but I think it's a misuse of the term here. And when I think an accusation is fundamentally incorrect, it means I literally don't get it.

It's true that the distraction accusation doesn't have a fantastic track record (I'm often the victim of it myself) - which is why I try not to throw it out unless I'm sure that it's accurate, and I think Rico's play here is one such case. A simple distinction that you can make in determining whether or not the distraction accusation holds weight is to ask yourself: Is what they're doing generating productive content or unproductive content?

The former. Anyone behaving like a goofball presents an opportunity for interesting content to develop whether it's their biggest intention or not. I'm doing it too frankly. My roleplay as Neil Hartley doesn't on its own power add anything to the game other than to create a scenario where others might suspect me for it (which influences my read of them). I'm not doing it for any strategic purpose, I'm doing it because I feel like it and damn anyone who doesn't like it. Rico looks like the exact same thing.

Most of the time when the distraction accusation is "bunk" it's because it's being directed at a player that's simply using unusual tactics to hunt baddies or back them into a corner. In Rico's case, however, there's just no justifying that he would not only advocate a policy lynch of Mac but confront and attack people that weren't fully on board unless he was in fact trying to prevent town from being productive. He's changing it up now because he doesn't have a choice.

Confirmation bias. If he doesn't change it up now, you're giving him the exact same amount of shit. Lose-lose. He put himself in this position voluntarily because it's how he felt like playing. If he had any serious strategic interests, he'd be smarter than to set himself up for this situation. It is so much harder to view this in a scum light than a town light.

Now you can disagree with everything in this post, but it's not nonsense and you do get it. Please stop pretending not to just for effect.

I'm not pretending anything. I'm telling you I think the case is so bad that I actually don't understand why it exists.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I'm with you on this post until the underlined portion. To me applying Occam's Razor to this would indicate that Mac's simply tired of Rico's shit and isn't bothering to read his posts anymore for that reason.

Why are you applying Occam's Razor for Mac but not for Ricochet?

[Elohcin]

However, I don't agree with JJJ and his vote for me. Epi said it himself that he had no reason for voting/suspecting me.

One of the reasons you've gotten the attention of Neil Hartley for the wrong reasons is that you keep attributing my suspicion of you to Epignosis. Don't get me wrong, Epi is a top gentleman. He knows his stuff. You're talking to Neil though. You know, the main event? The man under the spotlight with the microphone who's been crooning the evening away so divinely? You're talking to me, not Epignosis.

It's weird. I don't know what it is. But your role-playing makes me cringe. (I'm not trying to be mean, just honest.) I think there are multiple reasons for this. First, you have always been such a logical, reasonable player. And this act seems to be the opposite to that. The second reason is difficult for me to explain. I am a very matter-of-fact person. Black and white. The role playing unnerves me for some reason and I think its b/c it seems like you are hiding behind it. Like you don;t have to be real or talk about real issues of the game b/c you are roleplaying. Maybe I am the one being weird, or who IS weird. Maybe I am bringing my own personality issues into this and shouldn't be. FWIW, I think you are civ.

[Elohcin]

and i could have sworn you referenced Epi's vote in your reasoning for suspecting me.

[a2thezebra]

I haven't followed his recent games, but it's ludicrous even for someone who reads him as town to suggest that there's no WIFOM in his play. What about his inconsistency in advocating for a policy lynch of Mac while at other times expressing legitimate suspicion of him? Are you actually saying that he can't decide whether or not he suspects Mac yet continues to be extremely vocal about him all the same? If not, then the only alternative is WIFOM.

He doesn't continue it, first of all. That's bullshit and I don't know why people keep saying it.

People keep saying it because even though he's said that he wants to get more reads today, he's still focused on Mac. Look at his post history. Granted, it's mostly responding to people that are addressing it to him, but until he starts talking about other people in-depth and with a genuine investment in finding baddies and being productive, there's no reason to have half as much faith in him as you do.

On Day 1 I don't think he was inconsistent and I wouldn't really care if he was. He was focused on the policy and not on the actual behavior of the player. That's not WIFOM. I mean technically anything can be perceived as WIFOM in a certain light, but I think it's a misuse of the term here. And when I think an accusation is fundamentally incorrect, it means I literally don't get it.

No, policy lynching is not WIFOM. Not by itself. What he was doing was WIFOM because he wasn't even fully concentrated on the policy lynch. He was inconsistent. But oh right, you don't care that he was. Because then you would have to acknowledge that it is WIFOM. If you can explain why you don't get an accusation then you must get the accusation to a certain extent, and if you can argue with someone about what degree of merit it has then you must get it perfectly well or else you wouldn't be confident enough to dispute it. In short, yes, you do get it.

It's true that the distraction accusation doesn't have a fantastic track record (I'm often the victim of it myself) - which is why I try not to throw it out unless I'm sure that it's accurate, and I think Rico's play here is one such case. A simple distinction that you can make in determining whether or not the distraction accusation holds weight is to ask yourself: Is what they're doing generating productive content or unproductive content?

The former. Anyone behaving like a goofball presents an opportunity for interesting content to develop whether it's their biggest intention or not. I'm doing it too frankly. My roleplay as Neil Hartley doesn't on its own power add anything to the game other than to create a scenario where others might suspect me for it (which influences my read of them). I'm not doing it for any strategic purpose, I'm doing it because I feel like it and damn anyone who doesn't like it. Rico looks like the exact same thing.

I refuse to believe that you actually think your roleplaying is equatable to Rico's behavior. If that is the case, why (not a rhetorical question, I'm really asking you) do you think Rico got so much more shade than you did? Yes, you both fall under the umbrella of "behaving like a goofball" but in your case there's an obvious acknowledgement between you and everyone else that the roleplaying is just that - roleplaying, and it doesn't interfere with your opinions or your baddie-hunting efforts. It is, in a word, flair. Now with Ricochet that isn't the case. Not only is there zero acknowledgement from him that any of his behavior has been an act, those who have suggested that it is an act have been challenged by him that it isn't so. Exact same thing my ass.

Most of the time when the distraction accusation is "bunk" it's because it's being directed at a player that's simply using unusual tactics to hunt baddies or back them into a corner. In Rico's case, however, there's just no justifying that he would not only advocate a policy lynch of Mac but confront and attack people that weren't fully on board unless he was in fact trying to prevent town from being productive. He's changing it up now because he doesn't have a choice.

Confirmation bias. If he doesn't change it up now, you're giving him the exact same amount of shit. Lose-lose. He put himself in this position voluntarily because it's how he felt like playing. If he had any serious strategic interests, he'd be smarter than to set himself up for this situation. It is so much harder to view this in a scum light than a town light.

It isn't lose-lose because all that he would have to do for me as well as others to stop suspecting him would be to acknowledge that he was contributing nothing but WIFOM on Day 1 and proceed to scumhunt like he normally would in the games that he's known for. Not just to say that he would contribute, but to actually contribute. If that's too much to ask then that's a major problem.

Now you can disagree with everything in this post, but it's not nonsense and you do get it. Please stop pretending not to just for effect.

I'm not pretending anything. I'm telling you I think the case is so bad that I actually don't understand why it exists.

With every clarification as to what your position is regarding Rico suspicions you've managed to backtrack each time ever so slightly. First you didn't understand it, then you thought it was fundamentally incorrect (which is somehow the same as not understanding it) and now you do understand its nature but not why it exists. You're being disingenuous here, but I don't suspect you for it because I think you're doing it just for ego or stubbornness.

I'm with you on this post until the underlined portion. To me applying Occam's Razor to this would indicate that Mac's simply tired of Rico's shit and isn't bothering to read his posts anymore for that reason.

Why are you applying Occam's Razor for Mac but not for Ricochet?

I am applying Occam's Razor for Ricochet. It takes more assumptions to conclude that he's town than it does to conclude that he's bad. You've shown this to be the case yourself.

[a2thezebra]

News flash to JJJ and everyone else who's done this before: Just saying that you're using Occam's Razor doesn't mean that you are.

[Dom]

Honestly I don't even think this Mac/Ricochet debacle is noteworthy.

[a2thezebra]

Honestly I don't even think this Mac/Ricochet debacle is noteworthy.

What do you think is noteworthy?

[a2thezebra]

And if you don't think that the Mac/Rico debacle is noteworthy then what are your reads on both of them?

[JaggedJimmyJay]

People keep saying it because even though he's said that he wants to get more reads today, he's still focused on Mac. Look at his post history. Granted, it's mostly responding to people that are addressing it to him, but until he starts talking about other people in-depth and with a genuine investment in finding baddies and being productive, there's no reason to have half as much faith in him as you do.

The "granted" is the whole point. He's not babbling about Mac for his own purposes. He's answering other people who are babbling about his prior babbling about Mac.

No, policy lynching is not WIFOM. Not by itself. What he was doing was WIFOM because he wasn't even fully concentrated on the policy lynch. He was inconsistent. But oh right, you don't care that he was. Because then you would have to acknowledge that it is WIFOM. If you can explain why you don't get an accusation then you must get the accusation to a certain extent, and if you can argue with someone about what degree of merit it has then you must get it perfectly well or else you wouldn't be confident enough to dispute it. In short, yes, you do get it.

I don't think inconsistency would equate to WIFOM either. I think it equates to promoting a policy lynch that he felt so inclined to promote. I think you're overstating that inconsistency significantly, because it was quite clear that Rico's motive to lynch Mac was a night kill that did not occur in this game. Rico made no effort to hide that motive. It isn't WIFOM, it's salt.

We can argue all day about the semantics of whether "I get it", but that's pointless crap and it's making me suspect you more that you're so concerned with it.

I refuse to believe that you actually think your roleplaying is equatable to Rico's behavior. If that is the case, why (not a rhetorical question, I'm really asking you) do you think Rico got so much more shade than you did? Yes, you both fall under the umbrella of "behaving like a goofball" but in your case there's an obvious acknowledgement between you and everyone else that the roleplaying is just that - roleplaying, and it doesn't interfere with your opinions or your baddie-hunting efforts. It is, in a word, flair. Now with Ricochet that isn't the case. Not only is there zero acknowledgement from him that any of his behavior has been an act, those who have suggested that it is an act have been challenged by him that it isn't so. Exact same thing my ass.

The most important parallel is "behaving abnormally without caring about the consequences". Both Rico's vendetta and my roleplay fit that description. I agree that Rico has done less baddie hunting than he may have done in some past games. In his most recent town game, Red vs. Blue, he didn't do much if any baddie hunting either. That's his recent shtick. He spent the whole game doing his own thing, which largely amounted to pointless antagonism of Golden and I. It's very similar.

It isn't lose-lose because all that he would have to do for me as well as others to stop suspecting him would be to acknowledge that he was contributing nothing but WIFOM on Day 1 and proceed to scumhunt like he normally would in the games that he's known for. Not just to say that he would contribute, but to actually contribute. If that's too much to ask then that's a major problem.

You're demanding that he do what he has already pledged to do. He has made it quite clear that his Day 1 behavior wasn't the most productive method he could have employed and also that he doesn't care. He also said he would start getting into new reads. Sure, he hasn't done it yet, but the day is young. If he continues to waste time, it'll become a bigger problem. One thing that isn't helping is that he is faced with accusations constantly -- he's left with the decision to either ignore them outright and face the consequences, or lose valuable time answering them.

With every clarification as to what your position is regarding Rico suspicions you've managed to backtrack each time ever so slightly. First you didn't understand it, then you thought it was fundamentally incorrect (which is somehow the same as not understanding it) and now you do understand its nature but not why it exists. You're being disingenuous here, but I don't suspect you for it because I think you're doing it just for ego or stubbornness.

This isn't debate club. If you are going to tell me I am backtracking and being disingenuous, it's an accusation. You look bad right now. Your case against Ricochet is a really bad case. I don't get it.

I am applying Occam's Razor for Ricochet. It takes more assumptions to conclude that he's town than it does to conclude that he's bad. You've shown this to be the case yourself.

Self-serving argument. No.

[a2thezebra]

I'm with you on this post until the underlined portion. To me applying Occam's Razor to this would indicate that Mac's simply tired of Rico's shit and isn't bothering to read his posts anymore for that reason.

Why are you applying Occam's Razor for Mac but not for Ricochet?

Also, I'd like you to actually address what I said JJJ, rather than call out inconsistency that isn't there.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

News flash to JJJ and everyone else who's done this before: Just saying that you're using Occam's Razor doesn't mean that you are.

"Rico doesn't care" is much simpler than "Rico is trying to generate a distraction/Rico is employing WIFOM/Rico has an agenda".

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I'm with you on this post until the underlined portion. To me applying Occam's Razor to this would indicate that Mac's simply tired of Rico's shit and isn't bothering to read his posts anymore for that reason.

Why are you applying Occam's Razor for Mac but not for Ricochet?

Also, I'd like you to actually address what I said JJJ, rather than call out inconsistency that isn't there.

I don't think your explanation for Mac is necessarily the simpler one, but it could still be correct. I'd prefer to hear from Mac himself before proceeding on that read.

[a2thezebra]

People keep saying it because even though he's said that he wants to get more reads today, he's still focused on Mac. Look at his post history. Granted, it's mostly responding to people that are addressing it to him, but until he starts talking about other people in-depth and with a genuine investment in finding baddies and being productive, there's no reason to have half as much faith in him as you do.

The "granted" is the whole point. He's not babbling about Mac for his own purposes. He's answering other people who are babbling about his prior babbling about Mac.

You're far too sure of that. Until he starts broadening his focus then it isn't a reach to say that he's content to continue babbling about Mac.

No, policy lynching is not WIFOM. Not by itself. What he was doing was WIFOM because he wasn't even fully concentrated on the policy lynch. He was inconsistent. But oh right, you don't care that he was. Because then you would have to acknowledge that it is WIFOM. If you can explain why you don't get an accusation then you must get the accusation to a certain extent, and if you can argue with someone about what degree of merit it has then you must get it perfectly well or else you wouldn't be confident enough to dispute it. In short, yes, you do get it.

I don't think inconsistency would equate to WIFOM either. I think it equates to promoting a policy lynch that he felt so inclined to promote. I think you're overstating that inconsistency significantly, because it was quite clear that Rico's motive to lynch Mac was a night kill that did not occur in this game. Rico made no effort to hide that motive. It isn't WIFOM, it's salt.

Tell me then, what IS WIFOM? Is anything WIFOM?

We can argue all day about the semantics of whether "I get it", but that's pointless crap and it's making me suspect you more that you're so concerned with it.

You're suspecting me for being concerned as to how genuine you are with your opinions and statements? It's more than semantics, you're pretending to not understand a viewpoint that you obviously do in fact understand. If you don't see why that could be problematic and worth pointing out, that's a problem in itself.

I refuse to believe that you actually think your roleplaying is equatable to Rico's behavior. If that is the case, why (not a rhetorical question, I'm really asking you) do you think Rico got so much more shade than you did? Yes, you both fall under the umbrella of "behaving like a goofball" but in your case there's an obvious acknowledgement between you and everyone else that the roleplaying is just that - roleplaying, and it doesn't interfere with your opinions or your baddie-hunting efforts. It is, in a word, flair. Now with Ricochet that isn't the case. Not only is there zero acknowledgement from him that any of his behavior has been an act, those who have suggested that it is an act have been challenged by him that it isn't so. Exact same thing my ass.

The most important parallel is "behaving abnormally without caring about the consequences". Both Rico's vendetta and my roleplay fit that description. I agree that Rico has done less baddie hunting than he may have done in some past games. In his most recent town game, Red vs. Blue, he didn't do much if any baddie hunting either. That's his recent shtick. He spent the whole game doing his own thing, which largely amounted to pointless antagonism of Golden and I. It's very similar.

I was unaware of this. It would've been nice if you had brought this to my attention earlier instead of trying to shut down discussion by claiming to not understand.

It isn't lose-lose because all that he would have to do for me as well as others to stop suspecting him would be to acknowledge that he was contributing nothing but WIFOM on Day 1 and proceed to scumhunt like he normally would in the games that he's known for. Not just to say that he would contribute, but to actually contribute. If that's too much to ask then that's a major problem.

You're demanding that he do what he has already pledged to do. He has made it quite clear that his Day 1 behavior wasn't the most productive method he could have employed and also that he doesn't care. He also said he would start getting into new reads. Sure, he hasn't done it yet, but the day is young. If he continues to waste time, it'll become a bigger problem. One thing that isn't helping is that he is faced with accusations constantly -- he's left with the decision to either ignore them outright and face the consequences, or lose valuable time answering them.

Read the underlined portion from my post and then the underlined portion from your post. Are you kidding me?

With every clarification as to what your position is regarding Rico suspicions you've managed to backtrack each time ever so slightly. First you didn't understand it, then you thought it was fundamentally incorrect (which is somehow the same as not understanding it) and now you do understand its nature but not why it exists. You're being disingenuous here, but I don't suspect you for it because I think you're doing it just for ego or stubbornness.

This isn't debate club. If you are going to tell me I am backtracking and being disingenuous, it's an accusation. You look bad right now. Your case against Ricochet is a really bad case. I don't get it.

It is an accusation, an accusation I made. I also clarified that I don't think your motives for it are baddie-motivated. Does that mean that I shouldn't have made the accusation at all in your eyes? What is someone differs from me and does think that it could be baddie-motivated, someone with a better understanding of your playstyle? Should I have still stayed quiet and not voiced my opinion? Please. At this point it's you that looks bad now.

I am applying Occam's Razor for Ricochet. It takes more assumptions to conclude that he's town than it does to conclude that he's bad. You've shown this to be the case yourself.

Self-serving argument. No.

I'm not wrong, count the assumptions. Out loud if you wish.

[a2thezebra]

News flash to JJJ and everyone else who's done this before: Just saying that you're using Occam's Razor doesn't mean that you are.

"Rico doesn't care" is much simpler than "Rico is trying to generate a distraction/Rico is employing WIFOM/Rico has an agenda".

Who said anything about simplicity? It's a greater assumption that a player as active as Rico was on Day 1 doesn't have an agenda than to assume that he does in fact have one. The real question is (or at least should be) whether his agenda is civ-motivated or baddie-motivated. To suggest that he doesn't have one at all, especially to suggest that it's more likely that he doesn't have one at all, is beneath your intelligence and I'm not convinced you believe what you're saying.

[a2thezebra]

I'm with you on this post until the underlined portion. To me applying Occam's Razor to this would indicate that Mac's simply tired of Rico's shit and isn't bothering to read his posts anymore for that reason.

Why are you applying Occam's Razor for Mac but not for Ricochet?

Also, I'd like you to actually address what I said JJJ, rather than call out inconsistency that isn't there.

I don't think your explanation for Mac is necessarily the simpler one, but it could still be correct. I'd prefer to hear from Mac himself before proceeding on that read.

Again, I think you misunderstand Occam's Razor if you think its about simplicity. Less assumptions doesn't mean clearer, quicker explanations.

[a2thezebra]

I'll be back later, but for now let me say that what you said about Rico's recent games is illuminating so I'll take that into consideration. Besides that, your refusal to admit that you were being hyperbolic is somewhere between puzzling and frustrating. I'll sit on it while watching a much worse debate.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

You're far too sure of that. Until he starts broadening his focus then it isn't a reach to say that he's content to continue babbling about Mac.

It looks obvious to me. I've been wrong before, but I'm stating a confident read that I have made.

Tell me then, what IS WIFOM? Is anything WIFOM?

Blatant efforts by a player, town or mafia, to say things that imply they are baddies on purpose. i.e. "I'm scum." or "I night killed Epignosis" or "I was in BTSC with my scum partner yesterday and..."

Metalmarsh89, DrWilgy, and MacDougall are people who I'd say employ WIFOM like the above examples frequently.

Separate WIFOM comes in self-defense, i.e. "I wouldn't do X if I am scum, because..." -- something that I actually believe amounts to the truth significantly more often than not.

You're suspecting me for being concerned as to how genuine you are with your opinions and statements? It's more than semantics, you're pretending to not understand a viewpoint that you obviously do in fact understand. If you don't see why that could be problematic and worth pointing out, that's a problem in itself.

Yes, I am. I wouldn't be if you'd have just come out and said it's suspicious full stop instead of waffling back to "I think you're being stubborn" instead of "you might be bad". You're having to squeeze out a baddie read on me now because I've forced your hand. Before you were spewing me town.

I was unaware of this. It would've been nice if you had brought this to my attention earlier instead of trying to shut down discussion by claiming to not understand.

I have no idea what posts you have read and not read.

I can't remember ever seeing a baddie Ricochet in his own skin. Something tells me that WIFOM salad wouldn't be his most likely approach to tricking a roster full of high effort players (in his first baddie game in a long while as far as I know), most of whom are likely town. He'd be more likely to wear his Long Winded Analyst hat and try to appear as one of the team.

If this is what a bad Rico looks like, that's pretty lame. I actually think he looks rather similar to Red vs. Blue, when he basically did whatever the hell he wanted as a townie and didn't give a damn what anyone else said about it.

I think it's harder to explain his behavior from a scum perspective than from a town perspective. For the moment I favor Occam's Razor.

Read the underlined portion from my post and then the underlined portion from your post. Are you kidding me?

Yeah, I know. I'm telling you that the time remaining in this day is an important variable. Rico said he'll get busy, so we'll see if he does.

It is an accusation, an accusation I made. I also clarified that I don't think your motives for it are baddie-motivated. Does that mean that I shouldn't have made the accusation at all in your eyes? What is someone differs from me and does think that it could be baddie-motivated, someone with a better understanding of your playstyle? Should I have still stayed quiet and not voiced my opinion? Please. At this point it's you that looks bad now.

This is the problem I noted above. Anyone is welcome to raise any criticism at any time in a Mafia game, but sometimes they're going to look like b/s. Yours looked like b/s. To say I am being disingenuous without calling me a suspect is a classic discredit tactic and that's a problem for me. Now you're telling me I do look bad after I didn't accept that shit.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

News flash to JJJ and everyone else who's done this before: Just saying that you're using Occam's Razor doesn't mean that you are.

"Rico doesn't care" is much simpler than "Rico is trying to generate a distraction/Rico is employing WIFOM/Rico has an agenda".

Who said anything about simplicity? It's a greater assumption that a player as active as Rico was on Day 1 doesn't have an agenda than to assume that he does in fact have one. The real question is (or at least should be) whether his agenda is civ-motivated or baddie-motivated. To suggest that he doesn't have one at all, especially to suggest that it's more likely that he doesn't have one at all, is beneath your intelligence and I'm not convinced you believe what you're saying.

I could define an agenda if you like.

"Mac sucks for policy killing me in Romance of the Three Kingdoms for the reason he did and I am going to policy lynch him in response."

Which is what he said.

You're suggesting he is doing this to promote a false image and to be a distraction -- two additional factors, adding assumptions to your premise.

I'm suggesting he is doing it for the reason he said he is doing it. The end.

[sprityo]

We are currently in debate inception. Two people are "discussing" about their opinions of the actions of two other people who were arguing over eachother based off of something that happened awhile ago.

(But zeebs, I honestly have to go with JJJ on this whole spiel you two are having. Salty is much more believable than....well.....whatever point you're trying to make is.)

BUT ANYWAYS, THIS POST IS IRRELEVANT. MOVING ON

[Sloonei]

I still feel like Rico is town and Mac is a question mark. I don't really think that exchange taught us much at all about Mac.

[Sloonei]

We are currently in debate inception. Two people are "discussing" about their opinions of the actions of two other people who were arguing over eachother based off of something that happened awhile ago.

(But zeebs, I honestly have to go with JJJ on this whole spiel you two are having. Salty is much more believable than....well.....whatever point you're trying to make is.)

BUT ANYWAYS, THIS POST IS IRRELEVANT. MOVING ON

Let's move on to insertnamehere. What do you make of him?

[sprityo]

@sloonei: I didn't forget your question, I just haven't willed myself around to doing it yet. At first glance inh is in a weird position to say the least. I'll try to do something decent tonight or something maybe idk.

Linki: I totally was just about to post this