JaggedJimmyJay wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 8:48 pm
A fresh look at colonialbob
colonialbob wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 6:11 pm
Sloonei wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 5:02 pm
colonialbob wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 11:54 am
Sloonei wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 11:45 am
colonialbob wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 11:44 am
Sloonei wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 11:22 am
We need an eye rolling emoji that I can post here.
Posts that appear to say something while not actually saying anything? To borrow the words of somebody else:
Sloonei wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:00 amThat's a good enough reason for Day 1 because I will accept any reason on Day 1.
Do you intend to keep your vote on me?
What an odd question.
I will answer it by saying I subscribe to the maxim "Vote early, vote often."
I'm gonna put a vote on colonialbob because he never told me why this was an odd question.
It was early in the phase, and you were asking me about where my vote was going to be at end of day? That's odd to me. The explanation that vote switching was relatively new to the Syndicate eased that concern a bit. I also liked some of your other content, so decided to move elsewhere.
PS traveling today, so I'll try to catch up here in a bit when I'm sitting at the airport. I haven't read most of thread since my last post, just jumped to this since I got quoted.
I've highlighted a bit in this early exchange with Sloonei. Colonel Bob's vote was portrayed to be of the poop fling variety, which is a fine Day 1 approach for content generation and facilitation. I question though whether Bob had real investment in that vote given the highlighted content -- to be perturbed by Sloonei's question, answer it anyway, and in such a way that it essentially absolves Sloonei of the pressure inherent to the vote. "My vote is here now, but it'll probably move so don't worry bae." When Sloonei reversed the pressure in his direction, he kind of tucked his tail there.
colonialbob wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 8:50 pm
Jackofhearts2005 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 8:28 pm
colonialbob wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 8:24 pm
Speed with the sudden entrance. I like it.
Voting LC for now.
Why?
Science. And consolidating trains.
I don't know what the value of "consolidating trains" is with numerous hours remaining prior to the deadline.
colonialbob wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 8:54 pm
Long Con wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 8:29 pm
colonialbob wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 8:25 pm
colonialbob wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 7:05 pm
Long Con wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 4:34 pm
As for the cbob and mesk no-vote posts... they're empty filler. Neither of them are in any way real or substantial gameplay. There was nothing about mesk's "dirt" comment that should lead to any alignment decisions. IF you really feel the need to read into it, it indicates a general ignorance or the game structure, which doesn't show as good or bad. And I don't feel like it was even
that.
Does anyone disagree with this?
Yeah. There's at least as much content there as the Daisy guilt thing. Not gonna argue about my joke though.
(Catching up intermittently, posting as stuff catches my eye, so ignore if I'm outdated)
@Long Con care to address this point since you responded to the other quote of this post?
I don't understand what you are saying, can you phrase it differently please? I was saying that Epi's alignment conclusions about mesk, based on the "dirt" post, are not legit because the logic isn't there... you are comparing it to the Daisy guilt thing, but I can't figure out what you mean by your wording.
You said Epi's read of mesk was not legit because there wasn't anything in that post to get a read off of but didn't say something similar about the Spacedaisy votes because she said sorry she checked in and that apparently meant she felt guilty for being mafia. So I would like you to address that discrepancy.
PS boarded, will be back before EoD to at least skim and potentially change my vote.
The LC vote is qualified more substantively here, with an inconsistency cited. I don't know that the parallel being drawn here is entirely logical, but that's not necessarily a concern. Logic and civilianhood don't always mesh. There's another example of projected vote mobility here, and I'll note that he is transparent in the repeated examples of this. Transparency is nice -- if his strategy is insincere, he is welcoming players to tell him that. That's perhaps atypical of a Day 1 mafioso.
colonialbob wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2017 12:30 am
Thoughts at the moment:
The initial pressure on Epi was stupid. The bad argument pressure is better but could also be opportunistic. Lean that it's genuine but could be an attempt at sound and fury signifying nothing.
LC not responding to me question even when I pinged him and re-explained bothers me.
Jack is half hunting half doing weird meta talk. Reminded a bit of my first game on the Syndicate (Realms/Syndicate crossover), where he did the similar thing and was mafia. Not as strong of a ping thus far, but something to keep an eye on.
Feeling good at the moment about Quin, Sloonei, and speed.
Don't like Eloh's Epi defense. Don't know her enough to know of its actually something to read into.
Can't figure Kyle. Seems similar to early pirates, but not quite as 'good.
No reads on anybody else.
Late Day 1 stances. I appreciate that they are assertive for the most part, and not bogged down with caveats (perhaps apart from the Jack read, but that's rather nitpicky).
There's a string of posts in Bob's N1 content which I think looks off-the-cuff, starting around the point of this link in his ISO. He is interrogative with discernible direction and purpose. Cool beans.
colonialbob wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2017 10:36 pm
JaggedJimmyJay wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2017 10:13 pm
colonialbob wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2017 10:03 pm
JaggedJimmyJay wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2017 9:36 pm
Everyone should tell me what things in this thread you feel are most important/most warrant my attention and discussion among those I didn't just address.
I'd be interested in thoughts on me/jack/LC. Also the vote swapping from Epi to Nutella
I actually was just looking at your ISO. The long exchange you had with Jack at least looked dissociative (if that wasn't a word before it is now) -- I don't think you look like tiny mountains together. That point has limited value at present with no flips but whatever it came to mind.
I am less perturbed by your early poop fling at Sloonei than I was with DDL given that yours came first and it didn't last. I suggested in my puke that I think Jack looks good, at least for the point I raised.
Could you summarize your suspicion of him for me? I raised concerns with LC separately, mostly relating to his dealings with Epignosis.
Also I am not entirely clear on everything that transpired with regard to vote movement. I'll need some help on that before I can offer much insight, otherwise I'll see you after I check myself.
It's kinda meta. His posting early on reminded me of his play in the HCRealms/Syndicate crossover, where he kept going on meta tangents and shunting the thread away from actual reads. He was mafia that game, I called him out D1 and got NKed for it. But he's provided some reads since then, and while I don't entirely agree with him on say LC/Epi, his posts feel genuine enough that I'm fine with him now.
Bob couldn't be called stubborn in his reads. I have seen a few examples to this point of assertive reads revisited and reconsidered, and in such a way that I don't think he looks like he is ebbing with the flow of the dialogue -- it looks more like original thinking.
This rainbow represents a turn though, specifically on Jack. I don't follow what has happened with that read in the last handful of posts.
Vote Sloonei and:
colonialbob wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2017 11:21 pm
I don't like this sequence.
Sloonei wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:16 pm
Epignosis wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2017 8:34 pm
Sloonei
I don't feel you are genuine, and I think your go at Eloh was a try to score an easy lynch that people would find agreeable even if the result was no good.
Nope. I wanted you to share your thoughts on her, then I moved off.
Sloonei wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:43 pm
Quin wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:30 pm
I don't want to be on Eloh come day end. It could go on Sloonei.
I advise against this.
I could go back to Eloh.
Voting Eloh because he wants Epi's thoughts, that's all? But then he's willing to vote there immediately after taking his vote off? Smells off.
Soon after labeling Sloonei a dark greenie in his rainbow, Bob goes after him for a specific moment he cited above. This guy doesn't give a shit about being consistent. Good. This developed into a significant exchange between the two of them which lasted through the later portion of Day 2.
colonialbob wrote: ↑Thu Nov 23, 2017 12:55 pm
PS I think Sloonei's ISO of me started with the premise that I was probably bad and surprisingly enough found reasons to confirm. I don't think that's alignment indicative, I think it's a problem with ISOing people you're not neutral on.
If bob is a mafioso and Sloonei is a civilian, he was met with a challenging scenario after the Day 2 no lynch. Sloonei's general credit in the thread improved in that period, and then he made a big ISO for Bob himself. In this scenario, mafia Bob saw his attempted lynch target gain a strong foothold and then turn the sword against him in quick succession. I draw this image to facilitate a perspective of the post above wherein Bob assesses Sloonei's case against him -- that it started from a point of bias and
wasn't alignment indicative. It strikes me as a necessary condition that for Sloonei to be susceptible to this bias, he must first be a civilian. A mafia Sloonei operates with a deliberate slant, not an pre-biased mindset. I don't care for this response. I described the challenge a mafia Bob would have faced handling Sloonei's ISO, and this response does bear an appearance of "I don't know what to do about this."
Qualified the same dialogue as confirmation bias
Bob's Day 3 content was largely Jack-centric, wherein he was critical of Jack for being "wishy-washy" and "flip-floppy".
Example. Eh. I've never cared for that manner of accusation. I've seen plenty of civilians and plenty of mafia members render it. On a tonal level I think he sounds okay.
~~~
I had more positive to say about Colonel Bob than negative. The good stuff is more of an intuited reception of his tone, assertiveness, and candor in the earlier half of the game. My chief concerns come in his handling of Sloonei's case against him.
Leaning town, with reservations.