Mafia Championship Scrimmage [END]

[Zexy]

MP just trying too hard to be scum imho. Ika is the kind of person I find almost unreadable Early on, I was afraid Dizzy would be that guy, but hopefully, nope

Frog’s plan’s fine. I’m already on Psittaciform so guess I’m fine for it as things are.

What is NAI?

I don’t like Silver’s accusation of MP. Idk how much MP would tryhard as wolf, but I feel like Silver is trying harder to negat all of MP’s points, which is just… pointless, as Frog said

13 is read.

[Silverwolf]

The thing that is most suspicious to me about silver is not the vote itself, per se. Just look at the post I made where I said I didn't like the vote, and then her response.

I asked a whole lot of questions of her after saying I didn't like the vote at all. Her response was to call me defensive (what was I defensive about?) and deflecting (who was I deflecting from?)

This reaction was so over the top, it's what made me feel worse about silverwolf.

You shouldn't be feeling worse about me for that as you saw me play that exact same way as town in Turf Wars. This is weak as hell Golden and you know better than that. I felt like you were word twisting and going after me for weak reasons. I also felt you were white knighting MP but maybe you were defending a buddy here.

I don't 'know better than that' silverwolf. I played with you once, in a game full of people. I do not know every intimate corner of your game, but even if I did, you could just as easily use your meta against me. I found your behaviour objectively suspicious. I'm not going to be emotively bullied by you over it. The only thing that is swaying me (and it is) is your emotionless, rational responses to my questions. The 'you should know better stuff' is just meaningless to me. I've seen too many people try and get emotive to wriggle their way out of a correct read.

I'm not emotionally bullying you. Again, you are making shit up about me. It's getting old. I get emotional. It's not alignment indicative at all but you are using it to scumpaint me. That's scummy Golden. And I'm pointing it out.

You and MP both look like scum to me.

[Golden]

And I explained it repeatedly, yet you kept saying I was attacking him for RL when I wasn't. I don't appreciate that Golden. It's not true.

I am only going to say this once.

I never ever said that once. I didn't 'keep saying it'. I've never said it. Why would I? It makes no sense. Why would you attack him for 'rl'?

This is exactly the kind of thing that keeps my eye on you. Why would I listen to someone who screams the house down about misrepresentation but who misrepresents me constantly.

[Tangrowth]

Silver, with all due respect, I think you're letting your detailed knowledge of ika's current situation blind you right now. You're giving him a pass based on RL, but you were and are quick to judge me despite the fact that I clearly stated when I would be busy.

I'm not suspecting ika because he's not around. Look, I of all people understand being busy. It's my life. I suspect him for throwing out reads and not substantiating a single one.

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 41#p264060
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 41#p264062
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 41#p264063

In this first post, you say I "should know this" multiple times. This is my first game playing with you and ika. Even though I spectated Turf Wars and E.S.T., this is the first time I get to interact with both of you within the confines of the game. Don't assume or assert that I should know anything, and definitely don't use it as the basis of pushing my lynch in game.

Further, you say I'm going after "easy targets". Nonsense. Your backlash alone demonstrates how not easy of a target ika is.

What about me? If I told you I had a very stressed RL right now, how would that affect your viewpoint of me? Or Golden if you knew the same about him?

I appreciate nonetheless your comments, especially since you obviously approached it with at least some open mind considering you found my last point a "good point", but you're absolutely wrong about me and I think you're wrong about ika. I'm not saying I 100% know ika is mafia or any crap like that; it's still early in the game. I'm merely pursuing a lead that I think has substance. You're welcome to disagree, but it doesn't make me mafia, and I'm frustrated because I feel like you gave me some semblance of an open mind but not enough of one. Try to disconnect your read of ika from what you know is going on RL.

[Silverwolf]

NAI-is not alignment indicative

I am negating MP's point cuz I think he's scum.

[Silverwolf]

And I explained it repeatedly, yet you kept saying I was attacking him for RL when I wasn't. I don't appreciate that Golden. It's not true.

I am only going to say this once.

I never ever said that once. I didn't 'keep saying it'. I've never said it. Why would I? It makes no sense. Why would you attack him for 'rl'?

This is exactly the kind of thing that keeps my eye on you. Why would I listen to someone who screams the house down about misrepresentation but who misrepresents me constantly.

I NEVER ATTACKED MP FOR RL. I ATTACKED HIS CONTENT AND WAS TRYING TO GET HIM TO RESPOND TO ME AND POST. I THINK THIS IS ABOUT THE 5TH TIME I TOLD YOU THIS SO STOP SAYING I'M ATTACKING HIM FOR RL WHEN I AM NOT.

I'VE SEEN SCUM MAKE EXCUSES FOR NOT POSTING MANY TIMES. HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS RL ISSUES.

GET THAT?

[Zexy]

Incorrect. I've suspected only you and silverwolf. That's a big difference.

If you iso me, you'll see I've provided at least some commentary on an awful lot of players. I don't need to provide commentary on a player I don't see anything to talk about. There are very few players I haven't mentioned.. Dizzy and Psi are the only ones I can think of off the top of my head, and thats because they are mysteries to me and I've had no gut read.

This is one of the most common reasons to mislynch me. I'll hound players when I get a whiff of suspicion. That doesn't mean the other content isn't there.

I'd ISO you over and over before deciding to consider lynching you. I can see your points, which is why I think I'm just paranoid on you. I can’t see you as a serious scumread for now.

This is it for now. I’ll stick to Psi, the inactive ones really need to be weeded out. Actives will just make mistakes eventually, if scum.

[Zexy]

Silverwolf reactions don't really help her look townier

[Silverwolf]

@Golden-You keep saying I am attacking MP for RL.

What about the fact he is attacking ika for RL? Got any issues with that?

Zexy-I don't give a rip if I look towny here or not, how I look doesn't matter to me-I'm going after my scumreads, I suggest you do the same and if you think I'm scum, then go ahead and vote me instead of constantly discrediting everything I say.

[Tangrowth]

Lol Silverwolf - such effort. I'm literally just ignoring MP right now. He's either derping hard or tryhard wolf. It's really not worth the effort.

Just before you readily acknowledged that we couldn't possibly approach the game any differently:

Spoiler: show

Okay, now I have a total of 11 posts. I am no longer in the bottom four.

...And yet I am just as likely to be bad as I was before I started posting.

Frog can deny it all he wants, but the methods he's using to base his vote are absolutely advocating a policy lynch.

If you're fine with a policy lynch, okay, whatever, but advocating a policy lynch while denying that it's a policy lynch is highly suspicious to me. Especially when that policy lynch is based on going after the lurkers. I have seen baddies use lurker policy lynches time and time again to pick off the civilian lower posters while cruising their way to endgame by being very opinionated and very vocal, and almost every time I've seen that they have always advocated lynching lurkers while shying away from the term "policy lynch" as much as possible.

I appreciate the effort and analysis Frog, but my personal opinion on that tactic - if it is genuine - is fuck that noise.

Not to mention that I've gone after lower posters as a baddie while being extremely loud and obnoxious myself. I've totally used the myth that lower posters are more likely to be baddies than higher posters to my advantage, almost every single time I've been bad in this game. Even after people got used to that being my meta both here and on RYM, it would still work.

"Zebra can't be a baddie even though she did this suspicious thing and that suspicious thing...she's posting so much! I say we lynch one of the lurkers!"

-A few hours later-

"Ah shit, RIP So-and-so. I was so convinced, too. Well, what other lurker could we lynch tomorrow?"

The lesson is never learned.

I would like some input on a2thezebra's post and "performance". Is she generally a principled player who likes doing show-and-tell to make her points? Someone who shows their disapproval of an idea by demonstrating how it fails? Is she someone who has a history of being vehemently against policy lynching low-posters?

This is basically in reponse to a2thezebra's opposition to Frog's plan. I think the case she makes is correct, that we can't automatically assume low posters are scum. It's true. But instead of just pointing that out in a single post with a couple examples, she performs this whole song and dance of making filler posts to rack up her post count, to "demonstrate" the flaw in Frog's plan. That anyone could easily make posts for the numbers. But she's missing out the point.

Scum that lurk and don't post a lot don't just do it to not attract attention. That's counter-intuitive since they know that being on the bottom of the Activity list is bound to draw attention to them. Similarly, just posting for the heck of it (spam posts, etc) to rack up your post count is also not going to help as people are going to find you suspicious if you just fluff-post. So, it's not as simple as low-posting scum coming in and posting a bunch of garbage and they'll be fine. Barring RL reasons, scum who are on the bottom of the activity list are usually there as they don't know how to act town. Primarily because they're not actually motivated to "solve" the game an/or they're uncomfortable with acting in that manner.

To better explain my train of thought, I'll describe a scenario that I have come across myself. You see that you flipped scum, you talk a bit with your scumbuddies but don't post in game thread since you feel a bit awkward just posting on the first page or so when nothing has gone down. You come online much later to find 500+ posts already made. Now, you have to catch up on all this and post your thoughts, but as scum, you already know the motivations behind everyone's posts and it can get both, boring and awkward, to frame responses. So, you just respond to 3-4 posts, maybe make a post or two about your reads, etc, and then hop back to your QT to watch town towning each other. This is the general pattern I see in low posting scum who are at least trying to look like they're making an effort.

Anyway, getting back to my point about a2thezebra, I feel like she is misrepresenting the "low posters are scum" or "policy lynch lurkers" philosophy, whether intentionally or unintentionally. I don't disagree with her that just because someone has low activity/lurking doesn't automatically mean they're scum any more than the people who have high activity. In my experience (and I believe, most everyone else), in practice, it's actually true that each game will have a couple scum at the bottom of the activity list. It's not 100% of course, but the motivation behind pushing low posters / lurkers is understandable and one that I support.

While all 4 lowest activity posters are unlikely to be scum, it's likely that at least one or two among them are scum. This isn't a true "scientific" fact, i.e. logically speaking it can be easily refuted, and I know I've played in games where none of the scum were low posters. And I feel that a2thezebra is using this knowledge (that low posts = scum isn't necessarily true) to discredit Frog's entire stand. Because, even if none of the low posters are scum, pushing them and forcing them to post more is only a good thing for us.

Now, the question I pose is that "Is a2thezebra discrediting Frog's plan to "policy lynch" lurkers because she is completely against this school of thought (Low posters = scum) and can't see the merit of pushing these people to post more? Or is she so convinced that Frog is scum for pushing the "policy lynch" angle that she can't see the merit in going after low posters? Or is she discrediting Frog's plan in an attempt to soft-defend her fellow low posters?"

I think I was a far too wordy above, so I'll lay down my points again in a concise manner. But I suggest people to read the above for better context:

1. While Frog's plan isn't perfect (IMO as I've already pointed out in another post), I think the intent and basic motivation behind the plan is sound. i.e. we pressure the lurkers and not give anyone (even town) an opportunity to post less than they should.
2. a2thezebra is against Frog's plan to "policy lynch" lurkers, which I agree with, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't even pressure them.
3. And while a2thezebra isn't actually saying we shouldn't pressure them, the way she went about discrediting Frog's plan seems far too "passionate" and "theatrical" (I don't mean to say fake, just with a flair) to just be an observation. Looks to me like she's either very passionate against policy lynches on low posters or she's trying to soft-defend low posters by discouraging a push on them.

Marco, regarding this post on zebra and lurkers, I have the following (succinct) thoughts:

Regarding your first paragraph and the questions contained within: Yes, yes, and yes.

zebra's MO is "passionate" and "theatrical", so I think that's what you're picking up. You even note that zebra isn't against pressuring them, just policy lynches, something I've seen her say multiple times, but something I'm in agreement with, at least at this stage in the game.

If you want to engage more with respect to this conversation, let me know, but I don't feel like I had anything more to say between this post and the others I've made on the topic today.

Vig shot! BOOM! JK - Vig shotting the lurkers obv. But really, I think we're supposed to pretend to dislike each other. Literally everything you have typed I disagree with. There is not one post that I can say "ok, I can see how he can see things that way". We are at diametric opposite spectrums of the playing field.

Apparently so.

And, to clarify, I have nothing personal against you. If you feel as though I've expressed anything of the sort, I apologize, and that conversation should be taken to the Mod on Duty.

Nevertheless, despite recognizing that fact, now you're admitting that you're "ignoring" me and that I'm either "derping" (which is annoying, we shouldn't disrespect each other's play around here, so consider me annoyed) or tryhard wolf, which I'm not. I'm trying as much as I can to keep an open mind about you, despite my moderate mafia read of your behavior, but it seems you've given up doing the same for me. That's not advisable if you're town.

[Golden]

Marco 43 – Too many one-liners, kinda “fake” activity if you ask me. Not feeling too good about him yet.

What do people think about this? I ISO'd myself and I can sort of see some one-liners, but I can't really see how Zexy is calling my activity fake. She feels disingenuous IMO. I have had other reasons to suspect Zexy, too, but it could be that it's OMGUS-motivated, so I request others to ISO me and tell me what they think about Zexy's read on me.

I didn't understand why zexy said you had too many one-liners because it wasn't my impression. Still, he may have responded to this and he may have a good reason. Someones impression doesn't have to be a correct impression, and I think scum is more likely to be careful that their impression matches reality. So, in some ways, I find it a good look for zexy.

[Golden]

@Golden-You keep saying I am attacking MP for RL.

I've not said this once, despite the fact you keep claiming it.

[Tangrowth]

@Golden-You keep saying I am attacking MP for RL.

What about the fact he is attacking ika for RL? Got any issues with that?

Zexy-I don't give a rip if I look towny here or not, how I look doesn't matter to me-I'm going after my scumreads, I suggest you do the same and if you think I'm scum, then go ahead and vote me instead of constantly discrediting everything I say.

Stop misrepresenting me. I'm not attacking ika for RL. I'm casing him as a possible mafia member because he isn't substantiating literally any of his reads. I've said this. He's found plenty of time to argue back and forth with me, but none at all to substantiate his reads.

The moment he does so, I'll gladly listen. Otherwise, I don't know whether he's making "gut-based" reads up or not, because he's providing no backup that I can see for anything he says.

[Tangrowth]

With all of that said, I want it to be made clear that I think ika's point, either way, is a sweeping generalization that fails to consider the nuance of different playstyles and vote approaches. Some players will be more apt to move their vote than others, regardless of alignment.

This is all about playstyle. Playstyle is NAI. C'mon MP, I hope you have more than this. I'm more suspicious of you now, then ika. I may be too cautious with my read on ika because I eventually caught on to him in Turf Wars, it took a long time and I was townreading him for a long time. But still, he's null while your attack on him is scummy to me unless you have better points than this.

Who determines what makes up someone's playstyle or not?

If I and others told you my playstyle was to come in and post one post a day, and that one post contained nothing but mathematical equations, would you give me a pass for not contributing any substantive content?

This is why meta is largely unreliable and can be used as a shield by mafia. If ika is mafia, you've given him a meta shield that he can manipulate you with.

[Golden]

I think something in our communication styles doesn't work. You keep claiming over and over that I'm saying things I'm not saying (ie you actually say 'golden you are saying that'). In the mean time, you claim that I'm putting words in your mouth even though I'm not claiming you are saying things except by direct quotes. I feel like at times that my communication style is just not making sense to you. What can I do about that?

[Tangrowth]

@mp

Your the ore misrepresenting, I said scums move it as little as possible town doesn't give a damn about the vote.

I'm in a meeting but if you suspect me back it up with a vote

I just clarified. I'm not misrepresenting anything. Your logic is unsound and you refuse to recognize it.

And how many times have I said in the past 2 games I say "screw logic"?

I don't care for logic one bit.

So you're content suspecting me, despite the fact that Silverwolf said I was being too cautious, yet what you just said about town versus mafia behavior could potentially disagree with that interpretation?

Who do you actually suspect? You've voted for Marco and Golden, but you've never actually mentioned them as suspect.

Furthermore, instead of actually responding to the questions I have for you regarding your thought that sig is "odd", you still fail to clarify (1) how odd equals or does not equal suspicious and (2) whether you suspect sig.

I think you've not yet named any firm suspects because you don't have any, and you don't have any because you haven't gotten around to fabricating them.

He's out of town. He said he's gonna give reads. Why on Earth are you busy in RL but not giving ika a chance when he is also busy with RL? If he hasn't given reads yet, it's because he's busy. I want elaboration on sig, but sig is super hard for me to figure out as well which is why I asked him all those questions. Have you never said, something is odd about someone but gone entirely off gut this early?

The reason I'm getting involved is because you look like scum here and I want to point it out. Otherwise, I'd leave it alone.

Relax. He has 30 hours to change my mind. If he does, I'll gladly move my vote.

Be honest, if I was going after anyone else but ika and that person was refusing to provide any substantive explanation for their reads, you wouldn't be reacting like this.

[Tangrowth]

@mp

Your the ore misrepresenting, I said scums move it as little as possible town doesn't give a damn about the vote.

I'm in a meeting but if you suspect me back it up with a vote

I just clarified. I'm not misrepresenting anything. Your logic is unsound and you refuse to recognize it.

And how many times have I said in the past 2 games I say "screw logic"?

I don't care for logic one bit.

This is the first post from ika that has me lean town on him. He is a guts and instinct player, not logical at all.

Sorry for going post by post guys but this interaction might actually be important here.

You realize he can easily fake this as mafia, right?

All he has to do is type that he hates logic. Boom. Towncred with you gained.

[Golden]

Golden, I'm a bit surprised you're in favor of the idea. Can you elaborate?

Because, unlike what silverwolf is trying to level at me, I think trying to get people to post more is a good idea, and I think if it brings those 4 people to the table, it did its job.

I just am not going to pick on a single individual who has given reasons and call them 'constant excuses'.

This is the difference between liking silverwolf's explanation for her vote (which is fine and I've long understood) and me not liking her vote post (which, to me, contradicts her explanations because of the fact she picked on one person and called their stated reasons 'constant excuses').

[Frog]

Lol Silverwolf - such effort. I'm literally just ignoring MP right now. He's either derping hard or tryhard wolf. It's really not worth the effort.

Just before you readily acknowledged that we couldn't possibly approach the game any differently:

Spoiler: show

Okay, now I have a total of 11 posts. I am no longer in the bottom four.

...And yet I am just as likely to be bad as I was before I started posting.

Frog can deny it all he wants, but the methods he's using to base his vote are absolutely advocating a policy lynch.

If you're fine with a policy lynch, okay, whatever, but advocating a policy lynch while denying that it's a policy lynch is highly suspicious to me. Especially when that policy lynch is based on going after the lurkers. I have seen baddies use lurker policy lynches time and time again to pick off the civilian lower posters while cruising their way to endgame by being very opinionated and very vocal, and almost every time I've seen that they have always advocated lynching lurkers while shying away from the term "policy lynch" as much as possible.

I appreciate the effort and analysis Frog, but my personal opinion on that tactic - if it is genuine - is fuck that noise.

Not to mention that I've gone after lower posters as a baddie while being extremely loud and obnoxious myself. I've totally used the myth that lower posters are more likely to be baddies than higher posters to my advantage, almost every single time I've been bad in this game. Even after people got used to that being my meta both here and on RYM, it would still work.

"Zebra can't be a baddie even though she did this suspicious thing and that suspicious thing...she's posting so much! I say we lynch one of the lurkers!"

-A few hours later-

"Ah shit, RIP So-and-so. I was so convinced, too. Well, what other lurker could we lynch tomorrow?"

The lesson is never learned.

I would like some input on a2thezebra's post and "performance". Is she generally a principled player who likes doing show-and-tell to make her points? Someone who shows their disapproval of an idea by demonstrating how it fails? Is she someone who has a history of being vehemently against policy lynching low-posters?

This is basically in reponse to a2thezebra's opposition to Frog's plan. I think the case she makes is correct, that we can't automatically assume low posters are scum. It's true. But instead of just pointing that out in a single post with a couple examples, she performs this whole song and dance of making filler posts to rack up her post count, to "demonstrate" the flaw in Frog's plan. That anyone could easily make posts for the numbers. But she's missing out the point.

Scum that lurk and don't post a lot don't just do it to not attract attention. That's counter-intuitive since they know that being on the bottom of the Activity list is bound to draw attention to them. Similarly, just posting for the heck of it (spam posts, etc) to rack up your post count is also not going to help as people are going to find you suspicious if you just fluff-post. So, it's not as simple as low-posting scum coming in and posting a bunch of garbage and they'll be fine. Barring RL reasons, scum who are on the bottom of the activity list are usually there as they don't know how to act town. Primarily because they're not actually motivated to "solve" the game an/or they're uncomfortable with acting in that manner.

To better explain my train of thought, I'll describe a scenario that I have come across myself. You see that you flipped scum, you talk a bit with your scumbuddies but don't post in game thread since you feel a bit awkward just posting on the first page or so when nothing has gone down. You come online much later to find 500+ posts already made. Now, you have to catch up on all this and post your thoughts, but as scum, you already know the motivations behind everyone's posts and it can get both, boring and awkward, to frame responses. So, you just respond to 3-4 posts, maybe make a post or two about your reads, etc, and then hop back to your QT to watch town towning each other. This is the general pattern I see in low posting scum who are at least trying to look like they're making an effort.

Anyway, getting back to my point about a2thezebra, I feel like she is misrepresenting the "low posters are scum" or "policy lynch lurkers" philosophy, whether intentionally or unintentionally. I don't disagree with her that just because someone has low activity/lurking doesn't automatically mean they're scum any more than the people who have high activity. In my experience (and I believe, most everyone else), in practice, it's actually true that each game will have a couple scum at the bottom of the activity list. It's not 100% of course, but the motivation behind pushing low posters / lurkers is understandable and one that I support.

While all 4 lowest activity posters are unlikely to be scum, it's likely that at least one or two among them are scum. This isn't a true "scientific" fact, i.e. logically speaking it can be easily refuted, and I know I've played in games where none of the scum were low posters. And I feel that a2thezebra is using this knowledge (that low posts = scum isn't necessarily true) to discredit Frog's entire stand. Because, even if none of the low posters are scum, pushing them and forcing them to post more is only a good thing for us.

Now, the question I pose is that "Is a2thezebra discrediting Frog's plan to "policy lynch" lurkers because she is completely against this school of thought (Low posters = scum) and can't see the merit of pushing these people to post more? Or is she so convinced that Frog is scum for pushing the "policy lynch" angle that she can't see the merit in going after low posters? Or is she discrediting Frog's plan in an attempt to soft-defend her fellow low posters?"

I think I was a far too wordy above, so I'll lay down my points again in a concise manner. But I suggest people to read the above for better context:

1. While Frog's plan isn't perfect (IMO as I've already pointed out in another post), I think the intent and basic motivation behind the plan is sound. i.e. we pressure the lurkers and not give anyone (even town) an opportunity to post less than they should.
2. a2thezebra is against Frog's plan to "policy lynch" lurkers, which I agree with, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't even pressure them.
3. And while a2thezebra isn't actually saying we shouldn't pressure them, the way she went about discrediting Frog's plan seems far too "passionate" and "theatrical" (I don't mean to say fake, just with a flair) to just be an observation. Looks to me like she's either very passionate against policy lynches on low posters or she's trying to soft-defend low posters by discouraging a push on them.

Marco, regarding this post on zebra and lurkers, I have the following (succinct) thoughts:

Regarding your first paragraph and the questions contained within: Yes, yes, and yes.

zebra's MO is "passionate" and "theatrical", so I think that's what you're picking up. You even note that zebra isn't against pressuring them, just policy lynches, something I've seen her say multiple times, but something I'm in agreement with, at least at this stage in the game.

If you want to engage more with respect to this conversation, let me know, but I don't feel like I had anything more to say between this post and the others I've made on the topic today.

Vig shot! BOOM! JK - Vig shotting the lurkers obv. But really, I think we're supposed to pretend to dislike each other. Literally everything you have typed I disagree with. There is not one post that I can say "ok, I can see how he can see things that way". We are at diametric opposite spectrums of the playing field.

Apparently so.

And, to clarify, I have nothing personal against you. If you feel as though I've expressed anything of the sort, I apologize, and that conversation should be taken to the Mod on Duty.

Nevertheless, despite recognizing that fact, now you're admitting that you're "ignoring" me and that I'm either "derping" (which is annoying, we shouldn't disrespect each other's play around here, so consider me annoyed) or tryhard wolf, which I'm not. I'm trying as much as I can to keep an open mind about you, despite my moderate mafia read of your behavior, but it seems you've given up doing the same for me. That's not advisable if you're town.

My comrade in arms, my bretheren, my home slice MP.

This is not personal. Chin up lad.

I'm not insulting you as a person, I'm commenting your play.

I'm going to ignore your engaging with your actual content because I can only see 1 of 2 things occuring
1) TvT endless arguments and the game is sucked away from the attention where I want the game to focus on right now, which is on:
a2thezebra, dr wigly, metalmarsh89, and Psittaciform

I'm not going to waste me time focusing anywhere else atm

2) If you are wolf, you're going to purposefully distract me from my focus, so I'm just not going to play i nto it.

Either way, it's +EV for me to ignore you considering our seemingly polarized approaches and reads, at least for now.

[Tangrowth]

OK, let me make this clear for everyone who thinks I can't do shit

I am nearly at my allowed data limit
I am out of state where I am meetings all day
I can't make proper post mobile

And yes: I HAVE BEEN EXTREMELY STRESS DUE TO PERSOANL STUFF.

This is why I'm annoyed and jabbing at anything and everything.

Look I am about to head out, I can't be posting much if at all till near eod or night. I'll be flying later.

I'll keep silver informed of when I get back to my state.

I feel for you, ika, but if you're really extremely stressed, then we all will understand. It's just a game. Your RL takes precedence, man. I'm not going to be mad at you because you've clearly got higher priorities.

But it won't stop me from considering you as fair game for being suspected, and I think that's fair. You've managed to skim at least part of the thread and provide reads. I've applied pressure on you to elaborate upon those reads. Please try and do so at your earliest convenience. But don't let it add to your RL stress. It's not worth it.

[Tangrowth]

This has nothing to with the bottom 4 posters. You're really fast on the draw, I've noticed. Please go through my post again and you'll see that my problem is with making the top 8 posters waste their votes. Not with focusing on the bottom 4.

That is the context. If any of the Top 8 posters are scum, and their scum-buddies are in the bottom 4, by asking all 8 posters to evenly distribute their votes, we're making sure that who they vote for is pointless. They have no incentive to save their wolf bro because regardless of who they vote for, another person in the Top 8 list will equalize the votes.

I agree with this 100%. Yes, there is likely scum in the lurkers. However, we need people to vote naturally so that we can analyze their votes and their vote pattern. It gives scum a way to hide their voting and their reasoning for it.

I agree with this.

[Marco]

Anyway, no, my posts don't tend to be one-liners. I admit every post of mine isn't a bunch of thoughts requiring a lot of exposition but I think I have posted more substance-full posts (I mean quantity, the actual number of non-superficial posts, not that any post of mine has more substance or value than anyone else's) than the majority, in this game. But I do believe not every post has to be a bunch of lines. Sometimes a one-liner is more than appropriate.

I think I put a fair lot of thought behind most of my posts. Some have been on a whim but if I'm making a read, suggestion, etc, I generally think about it more than once before posting. I definitely don't think any of my posts have a scum motivation behind them. Why do you think my posts don't have thought behind them? Or that they're scum-motivated?

Particularly, in the post you quoted, what is so "thoughtless" or "scum-motivated" about it? You say it is a wagon that scum can easily lead on a townie and look fine. Why do you find my post "thoughtless" when multiple others (Golden, MovingPictures) have acknowledged that my observation is legit? And does your read change knowing that I actually rescinded my vote on Silver soon after that vote?

Agreed, you have indeed stepped it up recently. I can see the thought and I actually have a town lean as of now (but this is page 11 mind you). I didn’t say it was “thoughtless”, I said it was easy for scum to attempt pushing for a wagon there in case they are town. I didn’t completely agree with Golden/MP views anyway, still paranoid on Golden, not on MP.
Tbh you’ve confused me kinda so I’ll have to ISO you later on. By this point my read isn’t even based on that vote.

I, personally, didn't see that shift into thoughtless one-liners. You can do a quick ISO to see for yourself, for now. And yes, you didn't say "thoughtless". But you said there wasn't much thought behind my posts. Which I completely disagree with. I still don't understand what you found so "without a thought" or "scum-motivated" about my posts in the middle. Anyway, I look forward to you ISOing me.

I am exceptionally fast on the draw. Trying to catch people off guard, but meh, you're already tried and tested.

I see your misunderstanding and point of divegence.

I originally said, we should evenly distribute the 8 votes amongst the bottom 4 posters.
You're saying, fuck even disgtribution, let's leave it to free will
I'm saying, THIS PARTICULAR group of bottom 4 posters
You're saying, we should collectively decide which 4 we put wagons on, and wait until later to decide

Now - I'm saying - the plan is out of the bag now. Meow. Scum will be attempting to pad their post counts ever since I mentioned the topic of slankers. We should stick to bottom 4.

Pretty much. I don't disagree with focusing on low posters / lurkers. I don't even disagree with "policy lynching" them, i.e. if you're policy lynching them and they still aren't contributing or are unsuccessful at making me think they're town, it's not really policy lynch any more.

My only problem was that we shouldn't waste the Top 8 players' votes by making them evenly distributing them. Much better if we all agree on 3-4 people that need to contribute more and then letting everyone else vote for them.

Though, it's not going to be easy to have everyone follow through with such a plan. I know it would be very hard on my home boards, and from what I can tell from the responses here, seems to be the case too. Either way, it's not a bad thing because at least some of us will be pressuring the low posters.

In any case - you are free to decide as you wish - I'm saying we stick to:
a2thezebra
DrWilgy
Metalmarsh89
Psittacoform

I've given my logic which I believe is more than reasonable.

Which 4 players do you, and everyone else suggest?

I liked a2thezebra's response so I'm leaning on town on her. Metalmarsh is someone I've played with before (I totally forgot when someone asked me who I've played with, before), and IIRC he's not the kind to lurk just because he's scum. Looks to me he's actually busy IRL but I could be wrong.

Anyway, my 4 picks would be:

Inawordyes
DrWilgy
Psittacoform
Metalmarsh89

Also, Soneji has not made a single post yet. He is from my home board though, and this is not at all uncharacteristic of him, so I'm still waiting on what he has to post.

[Golden]

Didn't manage to catch up. Be back in a few hours. There isn't heaps of posts, but it's dense.

[Tangrowth]

VOTE MOVING PICTURES


Before anyone gets annoyed with this as an ika defense, I think his interaction with ika very much looks like SVT with him being the S.

I pointed in out in several of my previous posts. MP is going for easy targets. His reasoning on ika is very weak. He's taking advantage of ika not being here to defend himself. He's not explaining his scumread well and his though process is scummy as hell.

He is very active so if he's scum, the sooner we lynch him, the better.

What's SVT?

If I'm going for easy targets, then it's clear that ika isn't the only one being unfairly pressured by me. Who else would you consider an easy target that I suspect?

I'm not taking advantage of anything. You're putting intentions into my posts and you don't know that, clearly, because it's false.

I'm not explaining MY scumread well? Irony. I'm pretty sure I've explained my reads better than ika this game, but OK. If you want me to further elaborate on any points I've made, I told you, please just ask me. I'm happy to try to help you understand where my head is at, especially now because it's clear we're missing each other here or you're being manipulative. I'd like to think it's the former.

How is my thought process scummy "as hell"?

[Golden]

And I explained it repeatedly, yet you kept saying I was attacking him for RL when I wasn't. I don't appreciate that Golden. It's not true.

I am only going to say this once.

I never ever said that once. I didn't 'keep saying it'. I've never said it. Why would I? It makes no sense. Why would you attack him for 'rl'?

This is exactly the kind of thing that keeps my eye on you. Why would I listen to someone who screams the house down about misrepresentation but who misrepresents me constantly.

I NEVER ATTACKED MP FOR RL. I ATTACKED HIS CONTENT AND WAS TRYING TO GET HIM TO RESPOND TO ME AND POST. I THINK THIS IS ABOUT THE 5TH TIME I TOLD YOU THIS SO STOP SAYING I'M ATTACKING HIM FOR RL WHEN I AM NOT.

I'VE SEEN SCUM MAKE EXCUSES FOR NOT POSTING MANY TIMES. HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS RL ISSUES.

GET THAT?

I mean, look at this. What am I supposed to do with this. Are you even reading my posts at all?

[Tangrowth]

Zexy, What do you think about the notion that Frog expected you to clear him based on meta?

I don't think it's unnatural for town!Frog to say that. Yet at the same time I don't know Frog's meta that well, I haven’t ever seen a scum game of his, which means I can't clear him based on meta for either his previous posts or this specific one.

Zexy, I have a few questions on this post.
1) You say what Frog has done in the beginning is scummy with respect to strategy talk and RVS hypocrisy. What do you find hypocritical about his stance on RVS?
2) You say his accusations of Marco are really good and he brings up towny points. What are these points and why do you think they're really good?
3) Can you elaborate on what you mean by Sloonei's cases being a bit too perfect? What posts/cases in particular?

1) The fact he stated he dislikes RVS but pushed for people to tell him they are town, as well as doing it himself.
2) Now this is from a while ago, when Marco only provided commentary in an attempt to look like an important voice over the Sloonei/Sig (and later Golden) debate. The points Frog brought up felt good because of his solvy tone which I’ve seen before, as well as the fact that I agreed with them (and his read on Marco at the time) so I thought we had a similar mindset.
3) The questions he made up until the point I said that; he always seems to be able to see holes in others’ logic and make the correct question. He always seems to be correct in the arguments he takes part in. As in, picking only fights he can win.

Btw this overall behavior from MP is seriously towny. His questions/cases on everybody make lots of sense.

Only read until page 10 for now.

Okay, cool, these answers clear up your thought process to me. Awesome. Thanks much.

Consider yourself moved a bit on the rainbow.

[Silverwolf]

I think something in our communication styles doesn't work. You keep claiming over and over that I'm saying things I'm not saying (ie you actually say 'golden you are saying that'). In the mean time, you claim that I'm putting words in your mouth even though I'm not claiming you are saying things except by direct quotes. I feel like at times that my communication style is just not making sense to you. What can I do about that?

It worked fine last game. It's not working this game. Probably because we are scumreading each other. I do like this post though. Your frustration looks genuine and you are trying to figure out how to work with me.

I like it a lot actually.

[Tangrowth]

our top poster has pretty much focused only on me/Silverwolf.

Incorrect. I've suspected only you and silverwolf. That's a big difference.

If you iso me, you'll see I've provided at least some commentary on an awful lot of players. I don't need to provide commentary on a player I don't see anything to talk about. There are very few players I haven't mentioned.. Dizzy and Psi are the only ones I can think of off the top of my head, and thats because they are mysteries to me and I've had no gut read.

This is one of the most common reasons to mislynch me. I'll hound players when I get a whiff of suspicion. That doesn't mean the other content isn't there.

Yo Golden, let's talk. You say here that Dizzy is one of the ones that's a mystery to you, but Dizzy has posted way more substantive content than Psi. When you get a chance, do you mind taking a quick look at Dizzy's ISO and letting me know what you think? He's still my #2 town read.

[Tangrowth]

@All

ika wanted me to let you know he's having internet problems and can't post until this evening when he gets home

Good to know, thanks.

[Tangrowth]

The thing that is most suspicious to me about silver is not the vote itself, per se. Just look at the post I made where I said I didn't like the vote, and then her response.

I asked a whole lot of questions of her after saying I didn't like the vote at all. Her response was to call me defensive (what was I defensive about?) and deflecting (who was I deflecting from?)

This reaction was so over the top, it's what made me feel worse about silverwolf.

You shouldn't be feeling worse about me for that as you saw me play that exact same way as town in Turf Wars. This is weak as hell Golden and you know better than that. I felt like you were word twisting and going after me for weak reasons. I also felt you were white knighting MP but maybe you were defending a buddy here.

Silver, I think you're having this problem with both me and Golden, unless I'm being hoodwinked by either or both of you.

You have unrealistic expectations for both of us; you expect us to be able to understand the details of how you and ika operate, when, even after playing many games with you, this could be difficult.

I feel like we're not at all on the same page, so maybe we can engage in real time for a bit if you're able to stick around? I'll have to leave within like 30 minutes though.

[Golden]

I think something in our communication styles doesn't work. You keep claiming over and over that I'm saying things I'm not saying (ie you actually say 'golden you are saying that'). In the mean time, you claim that I'm putting words in your mouth even though I'm not claiming you are saying things except by direct quotes. I feel like at times that my communication style is just not making sense to you. What can I do about that?

It worked fine last game. It's not working this game. Probably because we are scumreading each other. I do like this post though. Your frustration looks genuine and you are trying to figure out how to work with me.

I like it a lot actually.

I am trying to work with you. I'm trying to figure out how to put at ease your emotional reaction so that we can talk on a game level. Because it's difficult to sift out what is your logical response to your emotional response, and that makes it difficult for me to get a clear read on you. I think the more emotive you are, the more you misunderstand my posts. Yesterday, you clearly had an initial emotional reaction but when it subsided we got some really good discussion on the table. All I'm asking for is - try to stop emotionally reacting to me. I'm not trying to scumpaint you for being emotional. All I'm saying is that it IS nai, and that I have to dismiss the emotive stuff which is challenging for me because I can't entirely figure out what from you is emotive and what isn't.

[Silverwolf]

@Golden-constant excuses is because, besides the content I didn't like that I pointed out, he only was telling us his schedule and why he couldn't be here, I never doubted his RL, let me give you an example:

In a MS game offsite (ika-this is 188), there was a player named Ozgin. He was scum in that game. His first few posts were exactly like MP's-giving out his exact schedule of when he could post or not and continuing to do that. So this is why I am wary of it.

I was trying to get him to stop taking the time to do that, but to take the time to post content, when he could come back and do so.

If this doesn't make sense to you, I don't know what to do then.

[ika]

When I say I can't post and you say "ok let pressure/Lynch IKA" that's litarly ignoring the fact I can't fucking post!!!

I got like 30 mins of free wifi but going though checkpoint.

Golden, she used game related reasons and your way your resisting it is that he is busy in rl, but you can see no is doing the same.

So in short: hi pot I'm kettle

[Silverwolf]

I think something in our communication styles doesn't work. You keep claiming over and over that I'm saying things I'm not saying (ie you actually say 'golden you are saying that'). In the mean time, you claim that I'm putting words in your mouth even though I'm not claiming you are saying things except by direct quotes. I feel like at times that my communication style is just not making sense to you. What can I do about that?

It worked fine last game. It's not working this game. Probably because we are scumreading each other. I do like this post though. Your frustration looks genuine and you are trying to figure out how to work with me.

I like it a lot actually.

I am trying to work with you. I'm trying to figure out how to put at ease your emotional reaction so that we can talk on a game level. Because it's difficult to sift out what is your logical response to your emotional response, and that makes it difficult for me to get a clear read on you. I think the more emotive you are, the more you misunderstand my posts. Yesterday, you clearly had an initial emotional reaction but when it subsided we got some really good discussion on the table. All I'm asking for is - try to stop emotionally reacting to me. I'm not trying to scumpaint you for being emotional. All I'm saying is that it IS nai, and that I have to dismiss the emotive stuff which is challenging for me because I can't entirely figure out what from you is emotive and what isn't.

This is a very fair point. Emotive should be obvious. Any questions, ask me.

[Golden]

I do want you to understand though, these things.

1) Your initial vote pinged me, but it is not the primary reason I voted you.
2) It pinged me not because you want to get a response from MP, but because you singled out only one low poster, and it was the one who had given reasons for his absence. It felt llazier (or, more accurately, like the easy route) than I felt like town SW was in Turf Wars for you to pick the low poster who has ADMITTED to being absent. Thta's why I asked you 'why not soneji'.
3) I was never endeavouring to defend MP. I was endeavouring to attack your rationale for voting him specifically. Sometimes it's easy to conflate these two things. I've got a subsequent town read from MP but at the time I had no read on him at all.
4) The biggest reason I voted you was because you claimed I was getting defensive and deflecting when I couldn't understand why you wuold perceive me that way.

If we can get on the same page around you understanding why I'm suspecting you (ie, nothing to do with 'you are suspecting MP for rl') we might have a better starting point for discussion.

thanks for engaging.

@Ika - as noted by others, its time for you to step away from my discussion with silverwolf (As hard as it is - I get why you like to defend her, and its a neat thing, but it isn't helping in the game) and let her answer for herself.

[Golden]

Now, I really do have to go - but I think we are getting on the same page. If I do have any questions, I'll ask when I get back.

[Silverwolf]

The thing that is most suspicious to me about silver is not the vote itself, per se. Just look at the post I made where I said I didn't like the vote, and then her response.

I asked a whole lot of questions of her after saying I didn't like the vote at all. Her response was to call me defensive (what was I defensive about?) and deflecting (who was I deflecting from?)

This reaction was so over the top, it's what made me feel worse about silverwolf.

You shouldn't be feeling worse about me for that as you saw me play that exact same way as town in Turf Wars. This is weak as hell Golden and you know better than that. I felt like you were word twisting and going after me for weak reasons. I also felt you were white knighting MP but maybe you were defending a buddy here.

Silver, I think you're having this problem with both me and Golden, unless I'm being hoodwinked by either or both of you.

You have unrealistic expectations for both of us; you expect us to be able to understand the details of how you and ika operate, when, even after playing many games with you, this could be difficult.

I feel like we're not at all on the same page, so maybe we can engage in real time for a bit if you're able to stick around? I'll have to leave within like 30 minutes though.

I do expect people to use meta as part of their reasoning because, while meta can somewhat be manipulated, there is parts of it that can't because it's personality and playstyle and that's hard to change.

[Silverwolf]

Now, I really do have to go - but I think we are getting on the same page. If I do have any questions, I'll ask when I get back.

That's fine but I do feel like you are concentrating on me way too much. What about other players? I'd like your reads on anyone and everyone not named Silverwolf when you get the time.

[Golden]

@Golden-constant excuses is because, besides the content I didn't like that I pointed out, he only was telling us his schedule and why he couldn't be here, I never doubted his RL, let me give you an example:

In a MS game offsite (ika-this is 188), there was a player named Ozgin. He was scum in that game. His first few posts were exactly like MP's-giving out his exact schedule of when he could post or not and continuing to do that. So this is why I am wary of it.

I was trying to get him to stop taking the time to do that, but to take the time to post content, when he could come back and do so.

If this doesn't make sense to you, I don't know what to do then.

No, this does make sense to me. Perfectly.

linki - will do.

[Tangrowth]

The thing that is most suspicious to me about silver is not the vote itself, per se. Just look at the post I made where I said I didn't like the vote, and then her response.

I asked a whole lot of questions of her after saying I didn't like the vote at all. Her response was to call me defensive (what was I defensive about?) and deflecting (who was I deflecting from?)

This reaction was so over the top, it's what made me feel worse about silverwolf.

You shouldn't be feeling worse about me for that as you saw me play that exact same way as town in Turf Wars. This is weak as hell Golden and you know better than that. I felt like you were word twisting and going after me for weak reasons. I also felt you were white knighting MP but maybe you were defending a buddy here.

Silver, I think you're having this problem with both me and Golden, unless I'm being hoodwinked by either or both of you.

You have unrealistic expectations for both of us; you expect us to be able to understand the details of how you and ika operate, when, even after playing many games with you, this could be difficult.

I feel like we're not at all on the same page, so maybe we can engage in real time for a bit if you're able to stick around? I'll have to leave within like 30 minutes though.

I do expect people to use meta as part of their reasoning because, while meta can somewhat be manipulated, there is parts of it that can't because it's personality and playstyle and that's hard to change.

But we're incredibly unfamiliar with each other's meta, and you're acting like we've played for years. As much as I respect you and your impressive abilities from what I've seen of you, I wouldn't say I really know much of anything meta-wise with certainty about you two, other than the fact that ika consistently comes to your defense.

You ripped apart my entire case saying everything is NAI, but you're making the judgment that it's NAI. I obviously thought none of it was or else I wouldn't have cased ika on it. I can't just take your word every time you say something is NAI, because I don't know whether I can trust you or ika.

[Silverwolf]

I do want you to understand though, these things.

1) Your initial vote pinged me, but it is not the primary reason I voted you.
2) It pinged me not because you want to get a response from MP, but because you singled out only one low poster, and it was the one who had given reasons for his absence. It felt llazier (or, more accurately, like the easy route) than I felt like town SW was in Turf Wars for you to pick the low poster who has ADMITTED to being absent. Thta's why I asked you 'why not soneji'.
3) I was never endeavouring to defend MP. I was endeavouring to attack your rationale for voting him specifically. Sometimes it's easy to conflate these two things. I've got a subsequent town read from MP but at the time I had no read on him at all.
4) The biggest reason I voted you was because you claimed I was getting defensive and deflecting when I couldn't understand why you wuold perceive me that way.

If we can get on the same page around you understanding why I'm suspecting you (ie, nothing to do with 'you are suspecting MP for rl') we might have a better starting point for discussion.

thanks for engaging.

@Ika - as noted by others, its time for you to step away from my discussion with silverwolf (As hard as it is - I get why you like to defend her, and its a neat thing, but it isn't helping in the game) and let her answer for herself.

I feel like you are only concentrating on my vote on MP and not any of my other content when I have given a lot of other content since then. I do find it slightly scummy to do that. You have to look at the bigger picture and you have to look at other people. You keep this tunnel vision on me, and I'll start ignoring you to move on to other things.

[Tangrowth]

I've got at least a handful of responses banked up now, so I'm going to bulk post them.

Spoiler: show

Spoiler: show

Sig, what is the nature of your ping on me? How strong is it and why is it there?

I like this post. You really don't let a single sentence slip, don't you?

I can confirm that sloonei doesn't let a single sentence slip.

But he knows it. I once got lynched day 2 for defending sloonei hard day 1, when he was in fact scum, because I thought he just looked like his town self in not letting sentences slip.

So I'm not letting it affect my judgment of sloonei either way.

Golden, wouldn't you agree though that Sloonei did let his sentences slip in that game, which led to his lynch? That's how I would think of it. If so, how can you confirm that Sloonei doesn't let a single sentence slip? Or do you mean town Sloonei?

I mean, that's not the way I saw sloonei in that game. Others did, and I was like 'what planet are you all on' because I thought sloonei was balls to the wall with his questioning as usual. But you were right. So, I'm probably not the right person to ask.

Spoiler: show

Golden, I'm a bit surprised you're in favor of the idea. Can you elaborate?

Because, unlike what silverwolf is trying to level at me, I think trying to get people to post more is a good idea, and I think if it brings those 4 people to the table, it did its job.

I just am not going to pick on a single individual who has given reasons and call them 'constant excuses'.

This is the difference between liking silverwolf's explanation for her vote (which is fine and I've long understood) and me not liking her vote post (which, to me, contradicts her explanations because of the fact she picked on one person and called their stated reasons 'constant excuses').

Golden, thanks. This all makes sense.

Spoiler: show

Zexy, I have the following questions and comments regarding this reads list of yours:
1) What good points has Golden brought up?
2) How does the method by which Marco post make his activity faked? What do you think of the content of his "one-liners"? I find the fact that you are considering the method rather than the content of his activity as the basis of your read suspect.
3) What's the strange cover you are referring to with respect to IAWY? I can't recall off the top of my head after doing all that reading.

Thanks, Zexy! You're the best for dealing with all of my questions, assuming you continue to do so.

Also, what is slank cover, anyone?

1 The entire reasoning behind his reads on Sloonei, Sig, Marco. Even myself, I could see why he scumread me for a while, and why he changed his mind after we interacted. His points on Silverwolf’s behavior were good, and again he changed his mind after learning more about her.
2 I believed the content of his one-liners was just there so he would look active. Although he’s overly analytical now and I can see where he’s coming from. Will have to ISO him to put those posts in a townier perspective.
3) Slank cover = people announcing they will be inactive before the game or shortly after the game begins. IAWY’s slank cover is a bit strange, he’s talking about some new philosophy he will play the game by…

Psitacci’s activity is so low it’s suspicious. I mean, he’s inactive when town. But VERY inactive when scum.

I’d like to see a rainbow list from MARCO at some point. He said he doesn’t do them… but tbh I see no reason any townie ever wouldn’t like to do them.

Marco 43 – Too many one-liners, kinda “fake” activity if you ask me. Not feeling too good about him yet.

What do people think about this? I ISO'd myself and I can sort of see some one-liners, but I can't really see how Zexy is calling my activity fake. She feels disingenuous IMO. I have had other reasons to suspect Zexy, too, but it could be that it's OMGUS-motivated, so I request others to ISO me and tell me what they think about Zexy's read on me.

I commented on this already, but I wanted to emphasize it, because it's currently one of the strongest points against Zexy being town in my opinion. This could be a way for a mafia Zexy to fabricate a suspicion, but the train of thought is flawed (criticizing your method of posting rather than your content).

Methods of posting can be towny or scummy irregardless of the content itself. Ever heard of tone reading? I can see your point here, but scum!me wouldn’t drop the scum lean on Marco this soon.

12 is read.

Zexy, I appreciate your detailed responses to my questions. I understand now re: Marco, let me know what you think after you've taken a closer look.

NAI-is not alignment indicative

I am negating MP's point cuz I think he's scum.

I don't understand, please talk to me about this in real time. I feel like you're scum reading me only because I cased ika, because you seemed to drop the point you initially made against me once I became active.

[Silverwolf]

You ripped apart my entire case saying everything is NAI, but you're making the judgment that it's NAI. I obviously thought none of it was or else I wouldn't have cased ika on it. I can't just take your word every time you say something is NAI, because I don't know whether I can trust you or ika.

ika being out of town and not able to post is NAI because it's RL, ika being a gut/instinct player is playstyle which is NAI

Listen, I know I defend him more than others. I can't help it. I also know, that can cause me problems determining his alignment. I am being careful. I will be re-evaluating ika when he has time to post and can be here to talk to me.

I don't like that you have RL and say you can't be here but ika having RL and not being able to post properly because of it, means he's not explaining his reads well and is scum. I don't like how you aren't giving him the chance to do that. I realize he might not be around until end of day, but still I would expect town to wait and see on ika.

[Tangrowth]

Oh shit, that post format is nasty. Sorry folks.

[Tangrowth]

Lol Silverwolf - such effort. I'm literally just ignoring MP right now. He's either derping hard or tryhard wolf. It's really not worth the effort.

Just before you readily acknowledged that we couldn't possibly approach the game any differently:

[quotes and such that I snipped for readability]

And, to clarify, I have nothing personal against you. If you feel as though I've expressed anything of the sort, I apologize, and that conversation should be taken to the Mod on Duty.

Nevertheless, despite recognizing that fact, now you're admitting that you're "ignoring" me and that I'm either "derping" (which is annoying, we shouldn't disrespect each other's play around here, so consider me annoyed) or tryhard wolf, which I'm not. I'm trying as much as I can to keep an open mind about you, despite my moderate mafia read of your behavior, but it seems you've given up doing the same for me. That's not advisable if you're town.

My comrade in arms, my bretheren, my home slice MP.

This is not personal. Chin up lad.

I'm not insulting you as a person, I'm commenting your play.

I'm going to ignore your engaging with your actual content because I can only see 1 of 2 things occuring
1) TvT endless arguments and the game is sucked away from the attention where I want the game to focus on right now, which is on:
a2thezebra, dr wigly, metalmarsh89, and Psittaciform

I'm not going to waste me time focusing anywhere else atm

2) If you are wolf, you're going to purposefully distract me from my focus, so I'm just not going to play i nto it.

Either way, it's +EV for me to ignore you considering our seemingly polarized approaches and reads, at least for now.

No worries, I didn't think it was, but I couldn't tell for sure; doesn't help that I don't know you that well yet. Glad that we're cool.

Okay, hold on, sorry. What's TvT and +EV?

[Silverwolf]

TvT=Town vs Town

I also like to call it town on town violence.

[Tangrowth]

@Golden-constant excuses is because, besides the content I didn't like that I pointed out, he only was telling us his schedule and why he couldn't be here, I never doubted his RL, let me give you an example:

In a MS game offsite (ika-this is 188), there was a player named Ozgin. He was scum in that game. His first few posts were exactly like MP's-giving out his exact schedule of when he could post or not and continuing to do that. So this is why I am wary of it.

I was trying to get him to stop taking the time to do that, but to take the time to post content, when he could come back and do so.

If this doesn't make sense to you, I don't know what to do then.

I've been taking the time to post content whenever I'm here for longer than 2 seconds, so I'm not sure what you're going on about. I knew I would be incredibly busy yesterday; I warned you all of it. It's something I do in every game regardless of alignment. If you don't take my word on that, then fine, but one comparison to some other player in some other specific circumstance does not mean I'm the same alignment.

[Tangrowth]

When I say I can't post and you say "ok let pressure/Lynch IKA" that's litarly ignoring the fact I can't fucking post!!!

I got like 30 mins of free wifi but going though checkpoint.

Golden, she used game related reasons and your way your resisting it is that he is busy in rl, but you can see no is doing the same.

So in short: hi pot I'm kettle

ika, calm down, brother. We're cool. I just told you before that I understand if RL is stressing you out. It's only a game. I suspect you in it. Just get to posting when you can. All of us understand.

[ika]

for those who need an update I'm at gate, flight leaves at 530 (2 hrs) I should be home by 7ish

[Tangrowth]

You ripped apart my entire case saying everything is NAI, but you're making the judgment that it's NAI. I obviously thought none of it was or else I wouldn't have cased ika on it. I can't just take your word every time you say something is NAI, because I don't know whether I can trust you or ika.

ika being out of town and not able to post is NAI because it's RL, ika being a gut/instinct player is playstyle which is NAI

Listen, I know I defend him more than others. I can't help it. I also know, that can cause me problems determining his alignment. I am being careful. I will be re-evaluating ika when he has time to post and can be here to talk to me.

I don't like that you have RL and say you can't be here but ika having RL and not being able to post properly because of it, means he's not explaining his reads well and is scum. I don't like how you aren't giving him the chance to do that. I realize he might not be around until end of day, but still I would expect town to wait and see on ika.

Me being in an incredibly demanding PhD program and having to teach, balance RA work, three full classes worth of coursework, write two 20-page proposals in two weeks, and study for a final exam in which I have to recall the findings of over a hundred different accounting studies in order to use them to back up assertions I make in answers to questions is all RL too. I mean, everyone has their own unique RL situation that inevitably affects their performance in these games. It is what it is. You can suspect me in spite of it and that's fine, and I should be able to suspect ika, you, or anyone else in spite of it too. I only provide all the detailed information so that it's abundantly clear to everyone when I will be around and when I will not, so people don't think I'm purposefully avoiding the game and so they know when I'll be here to play. That's it. It's not this shield that I'm trying to use to say you can't suspect me. Suspect me all you want, I just get the satisfaction of showing you how wrong you were after the game is over. :P

I'm allowed to suspect ika based on what content he has provided, despite his RL limitations, yeah? I'm not going after him because he hasn't really gotten into the game yet. I'm going after him because what he has posted has struck me as increasingly very suspicious, and I've tried to demonstrate that.