Gonna restate the Boomslang case one more time (with a little new material), and maybe some people will understand where I'm coming from a little better.
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.
I had suggested before that Boomslang's early content featured him commenting on particularly simple/easy surface-level material without really digging deeper into critical thinking. His focus on the word "certainly" is an example of this -- he draws an inference from Golden's comment that is technically logical but not thoroughly considered. It was always very easy to cast suspicion on Golden for saying something that seems absurd like "I certainly think epi and I are not going to be on the same side at any point in this game." Golden quite likely knew that statement would be regarded dubiously by some and said it anyway, because he was working a real agenda. Boomslang made no attempt to examine Golden's conduct on a deeper level and just offered up the obvious criticism of the surface problem that anyone ought to already know about when they
make that post. In short, I think he might have taken Golden's bait on this (one advantage of intentionally saying something weird is that baddied have the tendency to jump all over "weird" things at the first opportunity, whereas civilians are more interested in "bad" things).
The second point is another example of the same thing. It was always extremely easy to criticize people for exploring an LMS mindset early in the game, and he literally displayed the reason why in his comment: the hosts made the rules and setup public. He wasn't thinking of the deeper motivations for players to explore the game that way -- he was throwing out a surface criticism where one seemed easily applicable.
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?
Operation: Nitpick
I'll try again to explain why this bothers me so much. I have already explained, even displayed with logical breakdowns, why the highlighted portion does not make sense. The progression from Golden's claimed bait-attempt to "Golden knew Epi was on the baddie team opposite the one making the kill" just does not work. That it doesn't work isn't the problem though -- it was what motivated me to hound him with questions. His responses to those questions were the bigger issue.
Instead of realizing the logical error, which I think is undeniable, and admitting to it (as I think a civilian or neutral player who made a genuine error would do in this situation), he insisted in every way he could that he
didn't make an error. He tried to show me why my logical premises were incomplete, and when he added more it
still didn't make sense. Nothing he argued fixed the problem, but he kept trying. This is how someone acts when they've made a mistake
and doesn't want to admit it. Which alignment should that behavior be associated with?
It looks like nitpicking to people because of the logical breakdowns I employed to show him why it didn't make sense. But the point I was making was
not a nitpick. I thought he was trying to cast suspicion on Golden (read: trying to join thread crusade against Golden) and made a mistake in his reasoning that he didn't own up to. I don't care if there are two baddie teams -- the baddies are still going to lynch people not on their own team when the opportunity is present. I honestly think it is an absurdity to assume otherwise. They'll baddie hunt, but they'll also lynch people they might not genuinely find suspicious when they can. This is self-evident.
Boomslang wrote: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*
This is completely weak and should not be acceptable. He wasn't the only one to do it, but I also yelled at the others who did it. It's another infraction.
Boomslang wrote:Let's try voting for myself! Seems to give you a get-out-of-jail free card these days!
This is clearly disingenuous, especially given that he moved his vote back off of himself when nobody liked it.
Boomslang wrote:I've been in class all day and still don't have time to post. My self vote was indeed a protest. And you all jumped on it predictably. Point made.
If his "point made" was that people would "jump on it predictably", then why did he call it a "get-of-jail free card" in the prior post? That doesn't make sense either.
Boomslang wrote:I disagree. Now what you need to ask yourself is this: am I bad, or just stupid?
This is just not a post that I see a civilian or neutral player making in this scenario. I explained why here:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:It's suspicious at face value. This is reminiscent of a post I made as a baddie in the champs finale that drew a ton of heat. I uttered a sentence that immediately brought the vultures circling: "What do you want from me?"
I was exasperated by constant pressure from a single source (coolkid in that case) and it drove me to saying something that was honestly terrible at face value. I don't necessarily think Boomslang was "exasperated" by me, but I think the constant pressure I was applying led to this crack -- I don't see this post coming from a civilian or neutral mindset.
Moreover, I'd have felt a lot better if he'd have simply granted the mistake after I pointed it out. Something like "oh yeah I see what you mean, I dunno why I was thinking that." Instead he argued me to the tooth that it did make sense, seemingly to dissuade the notion that there was a mistake. That's how baddies respond when accused of things that seem nitpicky -- they get incredibly frustrated and try to hammer home their true meaning without any honest-seeming resignation.
This just happened to me; I'm probably sensitive to it.
~~~
Boomslang wrote:Wait a minute, you know who's really flying under the radar? Russtifinko. Only 9 posts the entire game, and none after Day 1?! There are a few good points he makes that early, mostly about the need for neutrals to basically play civ unless otherwise recruited, but also some filler. The only vote he's justified so far has been for Timmer, and that because Timmer was an adjunct to the points MP had been making. What do you have to say for yourself, Mr. Russ?
Boomslang wrote:Now that Russ has a replacement, my attention turns to Dom. More posts than me, but not by crazily much, and the majority of them involved in the Golden debate. A definite quietness after the lynch result, saying only "I need to think a little more." Also seemed supportive of DFaraday's comparative quiet when JJJ prodded him with a vote. Still thinking over there?
Boomslang wrote:Daisy, if you liked Angry Orchard, then you'll love Ace Perry Cider. Much crisper, less sweet, highly recommended.
Wanted to chime in on the Sorsha discussion, because I haven't really looked at it too much.
There's a lot of early uncertainty tied to her previously announced absence from the thread, which is fine. The most pressing thing she comments on is her own survival in the early days; again, not to be unexpected, especially in an unrecruited stage.
Day two she starts to get a lot more outwardly focused. Talks about how leaving the Golden-Epi disagreement in the thread would be a good thing for baddies to hide behind, but stays wishy-washy when it comes to determining lynch subjects. Votes TinyBubbles for the drive-by, then does a bit of a NO U on TH when she's called out on it.
She then goes on a tangent about Golden being set up, which doesn't make sense to me; Golden claimed he had succeeded in baiting the baddies, he wasn't claiming a setup. I find this interesting because it seems very unlikely but becomes a focus of thread discussion, much like the Golden-Epi back and forth she feared would give baddies a place to hide earlier. And she doesn't really follow up on that suspicion because she votes bubbles again.
I think an
is indeed worthy here.
Boomslang wrote:Thanks for the rainbow list, JJJ, as it got me to take a closer look at Tranq. And I don't like what I see. There seem to be a couple places where he backpedaled from a course of action when he saw something else was becoming more popular. The first is when he asks LoRab to clarify a BWT suspicion:
Tranq wrote:LoRab wrote:EBWOP: Screwed up the ticking off who he had named. I think I started ticking off the ones he didn't name and then changed part way through. It is fixed below.
Do you think BWT intentially left people off his low-poster list because he either already has BTSC with them/plans to recruit them later? Is this why you voted for BWT?
Then stops asking questions and says:
Tranq wrote:I'm ok with a BWT vote.
The second is when he proposes asking the Brutal Executioner to kill JJJ, then says it was just a theory to spark discussion and doesn't post at all for the following day. These actions, combined with a basically unjustified vote on Sorsha, are why I am now *voting Tranq.*
After I finally stepped off the gas and gave him room to work, he used it to cast shade over a bunch of people who were unlikely to respond, sporadically participating, or already under immense pressure. These are extremely easy posts to make in his position and they don't do anything to make me feel better. The Dom post is the least easy among them, but still not enough to make me feel like Boomslang is really doing honest legwork.
~~~
I wondered whether I might feel differently this time. I don't.
it a bit?
I agree with Golden and Roxy - I saw nothing un-unfurly (furly..?) in her interactions with MP.
