Boomslang ISO
Boomslang wrote:Jeebus, 270 posts? Serves me right for sleeping through the start of game, I suppose :P Catching up now, typing some thoughts as I go.
The whole adverb thing is ridiculous. I don't see why it would be relevant for the theme (in terms of being a requirement for a given role). I also think generalizing that baddies use adverbs as a form of distancing or overexplaining is spurious at best. Also, MP clearly has a few sentences that don't use adverbs, so he's not even completely consistent.
I am, however, a fan of pedantic pink. A good addition to the stable of colors :P
Doesn't seem like anyone has gone out on too much of a limb, which is to be expected I suppose. aapje's listing of powers by position is great, probably the most useful think that's been done in the thread so far.
I think the easiest way to start picking apart preferences is through the role of the Brutal Executioner. People aren't going to vote for the position in which the Executioner could target their clan. All things considered, I think Position 1 is the best choice. Fairly low danger overall, and Executioner targets a Sorcerer, which reduces chaos.
This is Boomslang's first post on Day 0. On the surface it appears pretty innocuous; he joined the game a little late and offered some comments on a few discussions of interest. The reason I bring it up here is that the comments he made were pretty
easy to make. The adverb discussion was always total filler from everyone involved; it was never going to amount to any relevant content. The part I highlighted pings my intuitions a tiny bit, it's just a small tidbit that smells iffy to me -- primarily "which is to be expected I suppose". That's purely intuitive though so y'all might not agree. The only truly original content in this post is his idea w/r/t the Brutal Executioner.
Unoriginal, easy comments on Day 0 aren't a big deal. It will only become interesting to me if it's a trend in his post history after this point, so we'll see.
Boomslang wrote:G-Man wrote:Ricochet wrote:G-Man wrote:Our numbers are different because our approaches were different. You tried to evaluate the whole position, whereas I looked at individual players first to determine the most pro-civ position. Either way, both of our lists are subjective opinions.
Ah, I see. But if you look at players for their pro-civ positions and those players will happen to get recruited to the baddie teams, those positions won't be so pro-civ anymore.
This is true. My analysis is only worthwhile today. Your's will probably be a better guide after the recruiting starts. That being said, your analysis is limited as well. Some of the powers in your Negative Effects column could be powerful tools in the hands of civ-recruited players. Vote manipulation, phase ending, and blocks may seem negative but they are only truly negative if they were in the hands of a baddie. In the hands of a civvie, Position 3 or 4 could actually be the most potent for civs if they can get their hands on the negative powers. It's all relative to how the recruitment turns out.
This is a very good point. We have to be careful in this game to avoid thinking about traditionally "baddie" powers as bad, because the players who have them could go to any team. I think we should be most concerned about death effects. Increasing the pace of deaths reduces the amount of information that the players as a collective can create, which hurts the civ effort.
This might be called "easy" too, because it speaks the obvious (that nearly any role on the roster has the potential to be recruited civilian). However, I do like that Boomslang explained his preference for avoiding killing roles in a unique way. I don't believe anyone else cited the expansion of public information would be threatened by killing roles. That's a decent perspective to adopt.
Boomslang wrote:Argh, I can't even comprehend the amount of posting that's going on here. Two big things stick out to me, and I want to confirm that I share the suspicions previously raised.
Golden wrote: But I certainly think epi and I are not going to be on the same side at any point in this game. Recruiters would be daft to recruit us both on to the same side at this point.
The "certainly" is certainly a key word. Because the only way you'd know that for certain would be to be a recruiter yourself. At this point, the low-level animosity you've already established would be perfect for shedding suspicion of teamwork over time. I think you're being far too rash to discount that possibility.
The second is the continued insistence of some players, most recently Roxy, that this is not a good vs. evil game. It's written right there in the rules: civvie groups 1 and 2, baddie groups 1 and 2. There are lynches by civs and NKs by baddies that happen regardless of position. This is very clear, and I don't see why anyone would deny it except to sow confusion.
This post pinged me strongly.
I explained why in an earlier post. Boomslang never addressed it.
I called his assessment "basic" and thought his focus was purely on surface content instead of
deeper critical thinking. This meshes with the "easy post" aesthetic too.
Boomslang wrote:Roxy wrote: Are you saying there are not 5 different factions in this game?
Also if you are saying this is a good vs evil game then what do you call the neutrals (which most of us are) - good or evil?
There are five different factions. However, please note the following, from the host post: "These are not teams, just origins." The "factions" are just flavorful ways to inform different roles and spice up some of the position changes. There may be some clan dynamics things that go on, but that doesn't change the essential civ vs. bad nature of this game. In the end, no matter your initial clan, you're going to end up as either good or bad (or neutral, if you's a Guardian).
What do I call the neutrals? Potentially good or bad. But that's not important. There ARE baddies among us right now, and that is where our energy should focus.
I espoused a similar perspective at this point in the game, so I'll give Boomslang credit for at least being agreeable.
Boomslang wrote:Metalmarsh89 wrote:Boomslang is online now. I will not vote for Boomslang today.
I also recall Bullzeye being a strong contributor today. I will not vote for Bullzeye today.
Linki: speak of the devil.
Linki 2: you're off my list you.
Thanks bro! Anyway, not sure where I'll be in two hours, so I should probably vote now. Although I'd like to pursue the points I've raised earlier throughout the game, I think the case on Bass is the most evidence-based at this point. A very suspicious post, built on spurious reasoning and not followed up, is not civ behavior. *votes Bass*
While I agreed generally that Bass's theory post was suspicious, I'd have liked Boomslang's vote better if this wasn't his
first mention of Bass. He ought to have been more involved in this dialogue if this was how he felt about it.
Boomslang wrote:MovingPictures07 wrote:Boomslang wrote:Spacedaisy wrote:I'm confused. I mean I know what is going on with MP voting llama, but where are these other votes coming from? I feel like I've missed a step somewhere...
I definitely agree with this. I see llama throwing some shade at MP and MP throwing his weight around to discourage that shade. But that's a one-on-one interaction, and I don't see much else that justifies the votes of MM or DrWilgy. They seem opportunistic.
linki: And there's DrWilgy with a vague threat! The plot thickens!
What do you make of what Llama has thrown at me?
Whose actions are justified? Why?
Although MM did vote for Llama first, you'll see that the timing of his vote post (11:37) comes after Llama's initial attack on you (10:09) and immediately after your response (11:36). I'm willing to bet he saw that tension brewing and threw in his vote as a contribution to the reaction you're now leading. Smart play, and a good assist to possibly knocking him out. DrWilgy just kind of did a drive-by; analysis is apparently forthcoming, but I don't see why he didn't delay his vote until he could post that justification, as we still have plenty of time.
I think Llama has a point, and I think you've been very aggressive in your defense. Which doesn't make you bad, but it does indicate you're taking the suspicion fairly seriously.
linki: Gah, this game moves so fast.
This could be Boomslang's best post. His examination of MM specifically regarding timestamps evidences a genuine thought process that he was following through with. I also like his objective take on MP's "aggressive defense".
Boomslang wrote:Now that we've got this MP/Llama stuff, can be return to talking about Golden? The whole "I baited the baddies into a making the kill for me" line seems... unlikely to me. How could he have known that Epi was on the baddie team opposite from the one making the kill, unless he himself was on the baddie team making the kill?
This post confuses me. Even if we assume Golden
did kill Epignosis as a member of the Night 1 killing baddie team, that doesn't imply Golden would have then known that Epi was on the
other baddie team. This might be manufactured suspicion which Boomslang jumbled up as he put it to paper.
Boomslang wrote:Been away for most of today, and don't have time to catch up completely. However, I noted that Dr. Wilgy finally came through on the explanation and seemed to do a good job of it. Briefly looking at things, I'm really very pinged by G-Man changing votes to Bass despite claiming that this change "has very little to do with any suspicion of Bass." I'm more pinged by him saying this move is to "keep Golden around." As I'm already suspicious of Golden, this claim makes me want to ensure that Golden doesn't stick around. *votes Golden*
linki: Heh, Dr. Wilgy is on call all day every day.
Also confusing. In this post Boomslang seems to justify his vote for Golden with his suspicion of
G-Man. How does this make sense? Is the implication that Golden and G-Man were team mates and G-Man was protecting him?
Boomslang wrote:JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Hey Boomslang!
Vote Boomslang
aapje is going to murder me
I'm sorry, I didn't think I had to defend my points on Golden when the guy is literally asking to be lynched. That's all I needed to know for today, honestly.
*votes Golden*
You thought wrong. Defend your vote or else.
~~~
There isn't enough content to build a significant case, but I do think there are a number of pings here. His dealings with Golden are the most troubling. Otherwise I observe minor pings and minor positives -- not enough to make me
feel anything.
I have felt frustrated enough to self vote before. Most notably in my blowup during Death Note. TH implored me not to do it and I just went ahead and did it anyway. 
[-Mass Effect Mafia banner-]
Where's the hug???!?!? Then get Boomslang in on that action. Oh baby.
