Turnip Head ISO
Turnip Head wrote:All the recruiters are equally naughty. What makes half of them more civvie than the others, other than that's what we're told to call them? They all seem nearly equal in power.
Day 0 post. It's not that important, but we have to decide whether he's a recruiter so whatever. I don't know TH's personality well enough to decide how many steps of WIFOM to take on this one (does he post this as a recruiter???). I'm inclined to perceive it as
non-indicative of a recruiter role and proceed.
Turnip Head wrote:I'm probably voting for BWT today. He's not playing like I think he would if he were still neutral. Feels like something is already on the line for him.
Quite vague.
Turnip Head wrote:I think you're inaccurate in stating that all recruiters are equally bad. I don't think there's ever been a RM with recruiters who are not one way or the other in terms of baddieness.
Okay you think I'm wrong. Technically I've been proven to be wrong. Obviously Daisy thinks I'm wrong too because she's already said that. What else do you want Daisy to say about my post? Do you think I'm "not a bad place" for Daisy to put her vote because I'm wrong?[/quote]
I like this post a bit. His method for probing DH is agreeable to me, I think he asks relevant questions with potential to influence his read on DH in a meaningful way. It's a minor point because this is a minor post, but it's a positive.
Turnip Head wrote:I still think BWT is fishy, specifically his "Go civs!" post before his non-lynch, but I'm backburnering that because I agree with the suspicion on Bass. I'm seeing a few things that I associate with his baddie game, there was one post in particular where he answered some suspicion on him and then turned it around into a question for (I think) Golden. I think that sort of pivot play is straight out of Bass' baddie repertoire.
This is a very specific meta read on Bass. It might have been valid insight, I don't know Bass well enough to say. I'd appreciate it though if TH could try to recall some specific example of Bass "answering suspicion and turning it around into a question" in a past game as a baddie.
Turnip Head wrote:And I don't want to be recruited yet because I like keeping my options open. I played RM I and III, and this is the first time I've made it past Night 0 without a team. It's quite liberating. Team Neutral 4 Life yo.
The man wants to keep his options open. He's open to multiple options. There are two, and one of them is bad. Take that however you may. I am kind of inclined to believe that he was neutral when he made this post though. When I compared TH with DH, this was the sort of post I had in mind.
Turnip Head wrote:I feel like Golden is playing similar to how he started out in HSK actually, sparring with Epignosis and all. He just took it... a little further this time. I've only seen Golden bad in one game, when he subbed back into Economics, and he played nothing like he is here. He was calm and collected and attracted no attention.
TH took the right sight in the Golden controversy. I like that he bothered to provide a specific example from a prior game that inspired his non-baddie perspective of Golden instead of just dropping a read into the thread.
Turnip Head wrote:I suddenly feel like I should be paying more attention to Jay
This may have just been in response to my prior post when I joked that people "paying attention" might notice that some accusations of Golden could also apply to me. TH can clarify though: did this represent a true moment in which your suspicion of me began to develop? I ask for my own sake, this isn't really relevant to the overall progression of this ISO.
Turnip Head wrote:Ricochet wrote:Turnip Head wrote:MovingPictures07 wrote:Turnip Head, what are your thoughts?
I was thinking Bass was bad but his last few posts feel genuine to me. Not really feeling a Golden vote either. Idk.
[no Bass posts or posts on Bass (from anyone, that is) in between]
Turnip Head wrote:I voted for Bass.
Please explain.
I voted like 5 minutes before the poll ended, when Bass already had a majority. A vote anywhere else would have been wasted, or worse it would have led to shenanigans. I don't see what the problem is. I had to vote somewhere.
This seems a little obtuse. I mean no offense, TH, indeed you strike me as a very intelligent person. That's why this looks like playing dumb to me -- the reasons Ricochet might have viewed TH's Bass vote with suspicion were pretty self-explanatory (as he explained in the following quote pyramid). Ricochet even stated "the problem" in his accusation. Whether his suspicion was accurate can be debated, but I don't struggle to believe TH really didn't grasp
why it was viewed with suspicion.
Turnip Head wrote:Ricochet wrote:Turnip Head wrote:I voted like 5 minutes before the poll ended, when Bass already had a majority. A vote anywhere else would have been wasted, or worse it would have led to shenanigans. I don't see what the problem is. I had to vote somewhere.
Bandwagoning.
Flip-flopping.
Voting in contradiction your last read/viewpoint on the player you voted for.
Also: I didn't notice before Scotty bringing this up as well, and I agree with him that you also made some stronger remarks about rey only to never pick it up again, come vote time.
These would be the problems I can enumerate off the top of my head right now.
Why is bandwagonning a problem? If I had voted elsewhere, I'm sure someone would cite me "wasting my vote" as a problem, too.
Why is flip-flopping a problem? Is it a baddie thing to do?
I don't feel like my vote is in contradiction to my viewpoint. Yes Bass sounded sincere to me in his final moments, as players often do. I'm sorry that I wasn't sure about him. I said I wasn't feeling a Golden vote, and he was the only other realistic option at that point.
I brought rey up for the first time about 20 minutes before Day 2 ended. It's not even Day 3 yet.
The same conversation continues here.
Yellow = TH makes it clear that he was conscious of how his vote might reflect on him and that he cared about that to some degree. That's not a great look.
Orange = Another question that strikes me as obtuse. While a flip-flop isn't an immediate indicator of obvious baddieness, it
is valid cause for suspicion. This seems disingenuous to me.
Green = He's technically right that Bass was the most viable counterwagon to Golden, and that he had expressed more suspicion of Bass than Golden. I think
this is the right answer to Ricochet's accusation, but I don't know why TH felt the need to include all of the other stuff. Just say this. Why even ask whether flip-flopping is bad? Why even ask whether bandwagoning is a problem? This looks like overworked defense to me.
Turnip Head wrote:For my part - and I can only speak for my interactions with him, because I haven't looked at full thread context - it feels like Scotty is willfully exaggerating events in order to further his viewpoint. Maybe that's just how Scotty baddie-hunts, but it's a thing I noticed.
I'm a little bugged when TH asserts some cause for suspicion, even if minor, without referencing an example of some sort. This is just a statement in a vacuum, TH has left everyone else to figure out what he means.
Turnip Head wrote:thellama73 wrote:LoRab wrote:
Allow me to clarify: I think he is neutral. I think he is playing an anti-civ game. Therefore, I don't think his being alive is good for the civs.
Wouldn't it be better to try to find the baddies and lynch them than to focus on people you think are neutral?
This.
As someone else already pointed out, lynching neutrals only helps the baddies.
A quite unneutral thing for LoRab to say
(Wait, did I just agree with something that llama said in a mafia game?
)
linki: Will contemplate.
I think this is an important post. TH chastises another player for an move that he feels is pro-baddie. That means TH has distinctly taken the side of the neutrals/civs against the baddies in public discourse, and by my measure absolved himself of the excuses that can easily be applied to DH -- that he is deliberately doing less than he could be doing because of his probable neutrality. That he has adopted an anti-baddie mindset should imply that his effort will reflect that mindset.
Turnip Head wrote:LoRab wrote:Turnip Head wrote:If you think that, then why didn't you say something earlier?
Because I didn't think of it again until I was posting about your post a couple of hours ago.
why are you so threatened by one vote?
You didn't think of it "again"? As in, you had thought on Day 0 that my stance was nefarious, but you pocketed that thought until now?
I'm not threatened by your vote, I just want to understand it.
Because currently I think you were just looking for any reason to vote for me.
I think it's pretty clear what LoRab meant by "again", and it wasn't that.
Turnip Head wrote:Roxy wrote:Lorab - your turn on Golden seemed like you wanted to get in on the Golden lynch wagon and you found your own reasoning (which you know I respect) and went with it. And I was ok with it until I read your responses to others about your vote where you reinforce your suspicions all the way through your post then in linkitis you see the post that Golden made asking you to reconsider voting for him today until he had more time and with a snap of your typing fingers you say you will take action as soon as you know where to put your vote. And that just felt like a real
moment for me. Do you not trust your own suspicion or is it something else?
Exactly this. And LoRab can try to turn the tables on me all she wants, but she's the one who just said this about Golden (emphasis mine):
LoRab wrote:Allow me to clarify: I think he is neutral. I think he is playing an anti-civ game. Therefore, I don't think his being alive is good for the civs.
And this about herself:
LoRab wrote:And yes, I am neutral--like the vast majority of players. But I'm trying to play civ-friendly.
But what she says is not true. Lynching neutrals ONLY helps the baddies. If Golden is neutral like LoRab says she thinks he is, then he could still just as easily be recruited by the civs, and he would HAVE to play a pro-civ game. Voting for this reason is a fallacious argument. Lynching neutrals only gives the baddies more time. LoRab is saying she's playing a civ-friendly neutral game, but her vote for Golden doesn't reinforce that stance.
I think maybe LoRab eventually realized this, because after being called out on it by a few players (including myself), she quickly tried to move her vote elsewhere.
This is a bit awkward. "Exactly this" implies TH is stating his full agreement with what Roxy had said, but in truth their points weren't the same. I'll express them to the best of my own interpretation (they can both pipe in if I do a poor job of interpreting):
Roxy's point = it wasn't necessarily suspicious that LoRab was involved with the anti-Golden movement. it was suspicious that she moved her vote away from Golden when Golden asked her to.
TH's point = it
was suspicious that LoRab was involved with the anti-Golden movement because it conflicted with her claimed pro-civilian neutral approach. It was also suspicious that she moved her vote away from Golden when Golden asked her to.
These two seemed to arrive upon their individual misigivings about LoRab in different ways, but TH's language implies otherwise. #nitpickpolice
The implication here if TH is bad is that he was latching onto the anti-LoRab movement via Roxy (perhaps a trend since he has joined Roxy against me as well) so as to share accountability instead of shoulder accountability.
Turnip Head wrote:Out of the three self-votes, Boomslang's felt the snarkiest and least genuine.
I felt the same way, so I'll give some credit to TH for the mindmeld.
Turnip Head wrote:I thought that BWT not accounting for Azura forcing votes in Pos. 5, in the context of assessing MP's vote for Golden, felt like a potential slipup if he knew Azura had targeted players other than MP.
As in "Well hmmm, I know I didn't force MP's vote, and I don't see any other vote forcers, so that can't be it."
This is a bit of a reach. BWT could have easily just overlooked a relevant role since there are about 12,000 of them to keep track of.
Turnip Head wrote:Have JJJ and MovingPictures ever had BTSC before?
This is at least some evidence that TH had
something specific in mind about me as his claimed suspicion began brewing. I don't know what it was though. What the relevance of this question, TH?
Turnip Head wrote:aapje wrote:Turnip Head wrote:I switched my vote.
Weird post by TH, not even specifying to whom or why he switched his vote.
I voted for Jay, and I did it for science. I'll
vote for him again though, I think he's been recruited.
*prolonged fart noise*
Suspecting me of being recruited is fine. I don't really view Roxy with suspicion given her repeated insistence of that. I would expect TH to try a little harder than this though -- at least present some kind of information from my post history that gives him this perspective. I've prodded him repeatedly to give me something, but so far that hasn't turned up very much.
Let's recall that earlier TH had espoused an anti-baddie strategy in his criticism of LoRab. That means we can rightfully expect meaningful anti-baddie effort from Turnip himself. I expect better effort than this.
Turnip Head wrote:My opinion of JJJ is that he's emulating his civilian game but not quite hitting his mark. That suggests guilt to me. This is based on an admittedly small sample size so I'm treating it more like a hunch than anything else. A lot of what Roxy has been saying about JJJ has been making sense to me lately, when I read their conversations I see her side more than his. I started feeling this way around Day 3ish, which makes me think he may have been recently recruited.
I've felt better about him toDay so far, but not much better.
TH expanded
some on his suspicion of me, asserting that I am falling short of emulating my civilian game. It's important to me that he provide an example of something in my posts that gives him this impression, especially because of his own admission that his knowledge of my game is based on a small sample. I genuinely have no idea why TH would feel this way, and he isn't helping me to understand despite my repeated requests. He's also appealing to Roxy's case again, sharing accountability for his read on me with her instead of taking personal responsibility -- even though her read on me doesn't even seem that meta-based. She has cited specific beefs that she has with my content in this game.
Turnip Head wrote:JaggedJimmyJay wrote:If you perceive me to be mimicking it inadequately, then I need to see what inspired that perception.
Why?
I perceive obtuseness again.
~~~
I think TH's early game content isn't terribly suspicious. But he has trended downward over the last couple cycles and that might be indicative of him having been recruited to a baddie roster.
[-Mass Effect Mafia banner-]
:P