Messages

951

Forum Games / Re: Clue Mafia - Day 4

« on: February 29, 2008, 02:12:54 PM »

Hokay. Both of you have generally looked pretty good to me for most of the game. That's gonna make this hard. I have noted issues with both your playstyles but I've always seen way larger ones elsewhere, in Meeple in particular. Still, gotta get to it. Gonna go backwards through the game.

<->

Kilga didn't impress me in day 3 in either of his posts because of the repeated statements to the effect of "I didn't pull no xanatos gambit!" This rings even more hollow now as a defence, as *both* you and Cid had a case against Alex fairly early in the game. Furthermore...

- Regardless of success or failure, a Xanatos gambit makes me permanently suspicious. There ceases to be any action I could make that would "not make sense for me to make as scum" because I've already shown I'm willing to try just about anything. Do you really think I would be willing to sacrifice my credibility for all future games for a good shot at winning this one?

I found these references fishy *yesterday* and now even more so; look at this statement by itself, and it reads as if Kilga is speaking directly from scum viewpoint. The "Why would I do this?" is obvious- because it can increase your odds of victory. The whole "But there will be more games of mafia and I wouldn't compromise my integrity in them!" thing is a) metagaming of the most henious kind, b) stupid in any case, as this is the game that's being played and other games are immaterial to the discussion.

I thought that his presence was quite low, but on reflection that's more because Cid and Meeple racked up the majority of the posts in that day. What he actually did with his posts looks pretty bad at this stage.

<->

Cid in day 3 was mostly fighting with Meeple. By comparision he certainly looked far more solid at the time, and still does, really. It's mainly small things that bug me with him.

Soppy NK does make some sense, as it tells us relatively little.

Speculation on why person X was killed almost invariably leads with WIFOM. Didn't really get followed up on, but could've provoked more discussion along the worst lines.

Were I actually scum, what would I gain from NOT voting Alex? Killing him there would be an excellent way to get townie cred, no? This is total WIFOM, of course, but that seems to be your favorite approach tonight, so what the hell.

Yeaaaah let's NOT encourage someone arguing badly to *continue arguing badly* via WIFOM. With Meeple having flipped town at this point, this actually reads more like encouragement to continue digging his own hole. Made even more suspicious by the 'If I was scum, what do *I* get out of this, huh?' statement.

I do find it particularly worrisome that Cid himself keeps pointing out how bad WIFOM is in general, yet did it here anyway. Yes, I'm aware he qualified it himself, no, I don't think that makes it much better.

That's the worst of it. Most of his defence against Meeple and Gate looked pretty good, even though it was verging on frustration towards the end. I thought that maybe his attitude of 'let's end this already' was kinda bad buuuuut... I was pretty sure Meeple was scum, and I was tired of his rants myself, so I have a fair bit of sympathy.

<->

As far as day 3 goes, Kilga seems significantly worse than Cid. I've still got to go back through days 1 and 2. Also gotta check out Alex's interactions with both of you... and am obviously wanting to hear responses at this point.

952

Forum Games / Re: Clue Mafia - Day 3

« on: February 29, 2008, 04:28:31 AM »

Kilga's post is mostly satisfying, buuuut there was one thing.

-The line on "Why would I pull a xanatos gambit in this game when it would hurt me in future games?" doesn't ring true to me at all; you might not pull such a gambit because it's bloody risky in the game itself, but people saying that sort of thing is actually one of the worst kinds of metagaming possible. You can always pull some massively convoluted scheme out and say "Look! He COULD be doing this!"- and it hardly matters what. This statement, much like Alex complaining that he's going to quit future games, has no bearing on *this* game.

<->

Re: Gate

-It's not like Meeple's posts themselves haven't been riddled with holes. The connection drawn between him and Alex isn't devoid of Meep being suspicious in and of himself, mostly via his conduct; hell, even just today, his defence has certainly made him look worse, rather than better.

-Again on Cid's case looking stronger and Alex than on Meeple- I think this is just too hard to decide, after reading through things again. It really does seem like Cid attacked Alex first in places and then tacked on an assault at Meeple near the end, but the reason the case *seems* stronger appears to be both the timing and the length. I cannot, however, say that the arguments themselves are substantially weaker, and ultimately it was a difficult call to make.

<->

I find that there's little more I have to say. I don't really think there's anything that's likely to change my mind. I've already warned Meeple about making his posts coherent, and no, I don't think it can be excused at this point, especially when even after perusal, said posts contain terrible exaggerations, too much WIFOM, and *despite* having a case on Kilga in his initial post, he basically dropped it in order to go after Cid- even though Kilga had posted but a single paragraph that effectively said "No way, I didn't do that!" Not exactly a stirring defence.

He hadn't even hinted at Cid before then. It really does seem like he grabbed Gate's argument and ran off with it.

The case on Cid is just not strong enough; the points it does make seem relatively minor or at least somewhat forgivable, given the low number of players and such. So...

##Vote: Meeple

953

Forum Games / Re: Clue Mafia - Day 3

« on: February 28, 2008, 12:52:08 PM »

As far as I can see, the case against Cid really boils down to a few key points, as presented by Gate and Meeple. If I am wrong on these, say so, but this is what you seemed to be saying in your posts.

-Low presence throughout the game, particularly on day 1.

This is true. I have not paid much attention to Cid myself due to focusing on Meeple and Alex, and the sudden case against him has been something of a surprise.


-Despite apparently having a stronger case against Meeple than Alex, he still chose to pressure Meeple. In particular, see the end of day 2 for how he seems reluctant to change.

I'm not  sure his case against Alex was stronger, and I'm not actually sure his desire to wait at the end of the day is a major tell, although it did make me blink when I saw it. It could be that he was hoping someone would speak up and lynch another, but Alex seemed a dead man walking at that point. The one real reason I find this bizzare is that he doesn't reference QR's replacement at all- as I said when I voted, that would be perhaps the one legitimate reason to drag out the day longer. Still, this is a relatively minor offence, given that had he been wrong, we'd be in LYLO.

I also felt Meeple was the worse offender for much of day 2, to be fair. I will grant that Cid seems to talk *more* about Alex than Meeple in general- and I'm really not sure what to make of that. A large part of that was also in response to Alex, so it is at least somewhat excusable. I do want someone to elaborate further on this, as it's a pretty major point.


-He's STILL going against Meeple today, and Meeple is a supposedly weak target.

I flat-out disagree that this is a tell; I would have voted Meeple earlier if it wouldn't have hammered him (the reason I didn't hammer him is because the day had practically just started, and more opportunity needed and still needs to be given to respond and debate.)

I believe 'weak target' is frequently synonymous with 'scummy target' and always have trouble taking this kind of claim seriously.


-He is supposedly hypocritical; for instance, planning on calling out people in the sidelines when he himself is borderline lurking.

Just because you yourself have made some kind of error doesn't mean you shouldn't point it out in others if you catch it, and to be honest, of all the things you can be hypocritical about, lurking is the least worrisome thing to call someone out on. (That doesn't mean you can get away with lurking, of course.)


-He has a habit of tagging along on the arguments of others rather than producing his own content.

This is the real problem. I feel like he did this blatantly at the start of day 2, in that he seemed to dredge up arguments that had already been covered in day 1 (mostly in my responses to Alex. In particular, this is the stuff over stifling discussion.)

In *general* he is usually the last to respond in any particular, um, debate. However, I don't think this is unforgivable at present. Keep in mind that it's a small game- there are only so many things being said and only so many points to cover. This is really corollary to his lurking charge, I believe, and perhaps the strongest point I can find against him.

Despite that, the case against Cid basically seems quite weak to me at present, and Meeple remains foremost in my mind. However, it's also true that Meeple is really the *only* truly strong case I've got at the moment.


<->

Meeple seems to have fallen into his prior bad habits, and I agree with Cid that it's disturbing. Much of his posts are riddled with WIFOMs; for instance, saying that "Scum wouldn't do this!" in almost any context is almost always a WIFOM; it goes double when it applies to "Scum wouldn't do this!" in response to allegations that you yourself are scum (in this case, I believe it went something like "Alex wouldn't act like this if I were his scumbuddy!")

"Now he goes after me again, for staying on Alex.  That seems to be everyone's only case against me.  As I said, the reason I didn't go so much after Alex was cause I genuinely felt Kilga was looking worse.  He also doesn't Hammer Alex, despite claiming "he would be willing too."

I.. need you to explain this to me, I don't know what you're saying.

He's right about what I was getting at with regard to my own mistake, vis a vis links between Alex and Meeple.

In general, Meeple's replies to Cid are both exaggerated and, well, misplaced. This really says it best-

Your entire rebutle to Gate feels...I dunno.  Its mostly "Nah, I did this!"

Yeah, I really do need to stop correcting factual errors.

He seems to argue against, to put it simply, both defending yourself and attacking others in his replies. I think I've covered the major points against Cid already, and Meeple's whole style feels like he's trying to cram together as many facts together and turn them into a bad light.

If I'm to take his argument seriously, I need him to rephrase it into a digestable form. I've done my best and can't really put it any better than that. In particular I need somewhat concise elaboration on Cid's case against Alex being stronger than that on Meeple.

<->

-Kilga needs to weigh in on Cid and Meeple today beyond just one paragraph. He also needs to weigh in on himself, so to speak- I posted some stuff in the very first post I made today and he hasn't responded to it. I'm not really willing to call him 'clear'; frankly, people shouldn't be so quick to toss around that sort of statement in general. He's not a lynch candidate today, most likely, but I still want him to reply.

954

Forum Games / Re: Clue Mafia - Day 3

« on: February 28, 2008, 01:41:37 AM »

With Alex flipped as scum, the associative tells between him and Meeple are too strong to ignore. However, his arguments against Kilga hold some merit.

Firstly, there's actually Kilga's response to Meeple. He's presenting the whole idea of him and Alex taking on each other as ludicrous. By Kilga's own admission yesterday, he was just as willing to vote for Meeple as he was Alex, and there most certainly was a strong case against him. That the argument was staged could hold some merit, especially given that he made a factual error himself wrt to us sharing a similar view on Alex. It also doesn't help that the basis of that mistake comes from a relatively small thing- that Meeple used the word 'we'- and in the same page he says this-

Alex, you forgot to mention your strawman argument here in your list of stuff you've done to be worth attacking:

Everyone makes the occasional stupid mistake.  See this for the people who were there for it, though I know Kilga wasn't.  A *pattern* of stupid mistakes, or one ridiculously massive one like making a case against a dead player, is scummy because it indicates a player is grossly not paying attention.  A single mistake where someone reverses two words, or types the wrong name once?  Scum or town can do that.  Brainfarts are equal opportunity.

I realize that no one before now has specifically said "that's a strawman argument" but I know I at the very least pointed out how it was a bad example here.

-which read to me in general as being critical of nitpicking when he did some not long afterwards. (It's a bit of a convoluted loop- he's criticising Alex for blowing up the 'mistake' theory/argument/thing into really anal about small mistakes.)

Meeple: For all that, Meeple is still my greatest suspect today. Part of it comes from him finding Alex suspicious so late in the day when there was no hint of it before, or as he says, 'I think one of Kilga and Alex are scum.' This felt like he as acknowledging the concept of Alex being scum, but he didn't really try to follow that line of reasoning; in fact, I can't see him actually bringing up a strong point against Alex at all.

I would say that the normal line of reasoning, here, is that if you have two people arguing and you think one of them has flaws and the other generally doesn't, you don't necessarily need to include the other one as a candidate for suspicion; and yet Meeple seemed to do just that, despite not having any stated case against him. Now, Alex did flip scum- but that doesn't excuse Meeple for not qualifying his theory.

I feel it's also worth noting that in Meeple's post that originally stated 'one of Meeple and Kilga is scum', that's.. well, that's what he said. But in his following post, where I questioned why he seemed to be suspicious, he said "It seems like someone related to Alex is scum"... and promptly came out with a List o' people. This echoes Alex posting his "I am suspicious of half the game" post to a degree.

Gate: It is imperative that you make a post that doesn't consist almost entirely of WIFOMs. As a replacement, you're almost by definition harder to read than someone who's been in the game the whole time. The fact that QRs posting was sporadric in general doesn't help matters any.

955

Forum Games / Re: Clue Mafia - Day 2

« on: February 27, 2008, 11:36:24 AM »

I would have not objected to an Alex lynch in any case, but his posts since my last one have actually boosted him up over Meeple in terms of badness, whereas Meeple's latest posts have actually looked somewhat better to me. They're not flawless, but he's actually making an attempt at analysis and presenting it in a clear(er) fashion.

There are two main problems I have with Alex's latest posts, though. The first is how he's treating the mistake I made. It's true that I shouldn't have talked about links like that as a general rule- but 'excluding myself' from the group he mentioned is only natural for me! I'm not going to consider myself a suspect and the implication seems to be that if I'm going to accuse him of deliberately excluding Meeple (someone who seemed very suspicious to me), I'm supposed to do just that? Never mind that I've been on their cases pretty for most of the day as is.

Meeple's mistake was worse than this, and Alex's stance on 'just one mistake' has vanished; I'm not protesting getting called on this (to a point) but the level to which he's taking it is stupid.

The other thing is this.

I will probably retire from Mafia here as I am tired of being hounded on metagaming and meaningless day 1 stuff every single game.

This is Alex... whinging. I don't think I'm wrong at all in saying that it's highly out of character for him, and I believe it's a deliberate appeal to sympathy. Sopko seemed almost half-willing to let it slide due to frustration, but to me it had undertones of extortion. Why bring it up in the game thread? His whole tone has been one of 'woe is me'-style exasperation, and it really just has no place in a serious defence.

<->

The only reason not to hammer here is to let QR's replacement speak. However, that's ultimately a moot point. Regardless of what stance he ends up taking, there are still two people present with stated willingness to hammer Alex- Cid, in the post just then, and now myself. Even if he pulled the vote, it wouldn't make a difference. So.

##Unvote, ##Vote: SirAlex

956

Forum Games / Re: Clue Mafia - Day 2

« on: February 27, 2008, 04:07:36 AM »

QR: Well. Alex and Meeple are my biggest suspects at the moment. However, I'm voting for Meeple and would rather see him hang over Alex; if for nothing else, it's because Alex has in general seemed to be less reactionary and less sensationalist, and somewhat more logical in his accusations, as well as having his own ideas in general and responding to threats against him in a more rational tone. The fact that he's the one coming up with an idea (which he later dropped) that Meeple picked up and then ran away with gave him a bit more cred, especially seeing as it feels like Meeple is still arguing that point.

<->

Despite looking better than Meeple, he's still not looking *good* to me. Forex-

From start to finish town ignored major playstyles (in WaDF, along with an implication they're doing the same here.

The biggest problem I DO have with his play is, indeed, his playstyle; it's read to me like he's defending Meeple's right to make mistakes, followed by stirring the pot and trying to spread suspicion in basically every direction. This is made more evident by his reaction to QR- "Stop talking about me!" was the gist of it, no? It all strikes me as a play designed to mutiliate focused discussion and instead try and dilute it, along with what seems like a stated ignorance of 'details'- when, in the end, details are all we have to talk about.

<->

I'm gonna throw this back at you, QR- why do you want to vote Alex over Meeple? Same question to Kilga, and I also want Soppy to elaborate on who he'd present vote for (if not, y'know, actually vote.)

Frankly, I just want to see more out of Sopko and Kilga in particular. I don't really think either of them have been lurking, but Kilga seemed to trail off after the MeepleRant, and Sopko still feels like he's sitting on the sidelines.

<->

Ninja'd be Meeple AGAIN.

As far as the whole me-being-outside-Alex's-excluded list thing, it was mainly because I don't consider myself a suspect, whereas I do think as much of you two. I do think it was dumb of me, but my point on Alex is that he's trying to pretend he's got something and listing half the game as suspects is still out there.

I am... curious that you seem to think Alex is scum. That isn't the feeling I've got from you at all during your posts- indeed, I've said before it seemed like you were supporting him. Care to elaborate on why you think so? I'm not sure on Kilga myself; I've wondered if he hasn't been reading my posts despite fairly large segments of his content having to do with 'em, given how he missed my point earlier.

957

Forum Games / Re: Clue Mafia - Day 2

« on: February 26, 2008, 02:43:16 PM »

Re: Alex

You say it's a 'subset' you're calling out on suspicious behaviour when it comprises of over half the game! There's no direction there, and I can't read it as anything but a scattershot ploy.

As far as the link goes. It's that you two are the ones I'm most suspicious of at the moment. It was a snap reaction to calling out the people I thought were *least* likely to be scum. It felt like you were trying to get everyone arguing amongst themselves, away from yourself and Meeple. The fact that you actually considered mentioning that out of half the game, there's probably scum baffles me when you could say the same thing for any group of similar size and be just as likely to be right *by odds alone*.

As far as ignoring that I'm the extra third party, I think that gives me a better position to judge your accusation-of-everyone than others. I'll grant that the link was stupid.

Re: Meeple

I can say that I came away from your post more confused than I was to start. For instance...

Then Rat continues to go on claiming his reasoning on Soppy is just, cause Soppy tried a flimsy, incorrect reason.  Ok, so to Rat's credit, he is being consistent with the mistake issue, since he's calling Soppy out for something obviously wrong.  He also says Soppy's reason remains suspect cause its the very first thing that is said.  This...seems like Rat is taking Soppy a tad too seriously; Soppy openly admits that he was just trying to get the ball rolling, yet he still feels strongly AGAINST the action?

So... you again ignore why I was against the action at that time, which was because it was *right after you, yourself posted*. The flying under the radar thing *didn't make sense to me* in that context. It was a small thing; I don't put much stock in it now. But at that point in the game, there was almost nothing! I felt it was weird and I said so.

I don't know what you mean by Sopko's reason being suspect because it's the first thing he said. I do mean that the *first semi-serious reason for a vote given* was not great, but I have not argued crap like 'he said something first! VOTING HIM FOR TALKING'. People keep bringing this up, and then they wonder why I keep refuting it.

This is similar to your original mistake that I talked about, too. On the other hand, you say I'm being consistant in pointing out mistakes, which would seem indicative that I'm doing exactly the opposite.

Rat's next post is about my "You are allowed to be wrong" rant.  He's basically saying  "that's giving people too much leeway!" which...is false.  He's basically, again, saying any mistake, even incredibly minor ones, are important...which of course isn't true.  By this logic, you can hold it against someone for a typo of a word that can somehow change the meaning of a sentence to be something they didn't want.

Now who's exaggerating things? I clearly wasn't talking about crap like typos in that post, but people making *factual errors*. You're twisting the whole thrust of my post into me just being excessively nitpicky.

In general, you bring up stuff I said and the words I choose all the time with no real conclusions drawn from them. Stuff like how I use 'wrong' when talking to Corwin, how I end day 1 by saying I'd rather have lynched you than Excal, and I just don't get why it was mentioned. It reads like a stream-of-consciousness rant and doesn't present your case clearly.

I'd like you to try and summarize the conclusions you've drawn from your analysis in a shorter format, basically. If you can actually signpost your argument I think I'd do much better at interpreting it. I still think you're repeatedly twisting things I've said.

<->

Kilga: A-ctually I DID think Alex was playing differently and wanted to call him out on it. See here-

And speaking of Alex himself, it isn't even the fact that Meeple made a mistake he seemed to think was fine that grips me- it's how he ignored the content of Meeple's post that seemed to say making mistakes isn't *that bad*. Alex's biggest tell as scum, by his own admission, include what he *doesn't* say. He's complained about how people do this to him every game. Tough- you're the one who pointed it out to me in the first place, way back in Touhou Mafia.

The issue has kind of been dropped since, and Alex has done other things I've found more worthy of pointing at. This is a metagame argument, and I'm frequently loathe to draw on these, but Alex is often inscrutable to me and I find myself wanting to compare his play now to his other games. I do believe his main tell is generally in what he doesn't say, and as he's always struck me as someone who loves to shoot down flawed game philosophy, I wanted to point it out.

<->

Edit for Meeplepost! Mostly in reply to Kilga? One thing catches me eye- when he says ME AND KILGA ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO EVEN BRING ALEX'S PAST GAMES UP. Well, actually, QR talked about how that kind of analysis isn't invalid. For another, so what? Is this actually a big deal in and of itself?

I find it ironic that Meeple of all people says 'you can find anything in a statement if you look hard enough', given my earlier comments on his post.

958

Forum Games / Re: Clue Mafia - Day 2

« on: February 26, 2008, 04:52:53 AM »

Soppy: Ehhh. I dunno, it feels like you've taken Alex to task today for stuff he's done on day 1, and didn't then. But it's a relatively minor concern at this point.

Alex: Way to list over half the current players still alive and say "I think one of these guys is scum!" Anyone can do some basic probability and put out that stuff. I note both of my suspects (being yourself and Meeple) don't appear on that list. This seems like a ridiculous way of trying to strongarm discussion into all the parts of the game that don't include you; instead of really accusing others, it seems to say "Meeple and I are not scum!" more than anything else.

I am generally hesitant to point to links between players, but this feels almost ridiculously blatant. As far as the Wolverine game goes... that's the game where everyone thought you'd tried to lie, then abruptly realised how stupid it was. Just because you screwed up in one game isn't going to give anyone a pass to do it, and if anyone pulled the same thing again, I'd vote for them, just like back then.

Meeple: I don't have time to go through your entire post, but I can say this.

And Rat brings Soppy's original error back up.  Ok, so Soppy coming out and openly claiming something that is LESS true than what I said is suddenly not as bad as "Skimming a post -> misinterpreting"?   There's something that doesn't fit here.  I smell inconsistency all over the place.  Soppy gets called on an obvious mistake...then people decide to overlook it.
THEN I get called on a mistake not long after, and people keep going on over it.

Soppy's mistake is *somewhat* forgivable for getting things started. My understanding now is that it was based on the distance between your posts in terms of time. I still found it strange, but it's a fairly trivial detail at this point. Your *mistake* is not only based on you reading the thread wrong, but leaping onto the argument of someone else. They are different, in both how the mistake was actually made as well as the actual magnitude.

959

Forum Games / Re: Clue Mafia - Day 2

« on: February 26, 2008, 02:49:48 AM »

Soppy: You.. don't, do you. I mean that you've been finding things 'off' about Alex. Sorry 'bout that.

960

Forum Games / Re: Clue Mafia - Day 2

« on: February 26, 2008, 02:29:35 AM »

Meeple thinks it's 'off' that me and Kilga voted for him while nobody else did. You're right that it seems like you doing an OMGUS thing, and you try and downplay the stance taken against you as 'harping', which is, well... hardly making a strong case on either of us, and not really looking at *anyone else*, except for the token 'hay Cid post' thing. I disagree with Alex saying that Meeple's mistake was 'just a mistake of reading', as I continue to find it bizzare that such a mistake could be made in the first place... unless it's because all he did was agree with Alex without checking the facts himself.

And speaking of Alex himself, it isn't even the fact that Meeple made a mistake he seemed to think was fine that grips me- it's how he ignored the content of Meeple's post that seemed to say making mistakes isn't *that bad*. Alex's biggest tell as scum, by his own admission, include what he *doesn't* say. He's complained about how people do this to him every game. Tough- you're the one who pointed it out to me in the first place, way back in Touhou Mafia.

He also characterizes me as defensive, despite acknowledging that I had to respond, and then all but dismisses the fact that I had a case to go with it. He's still voting for Cid after what I thought were fairly sizable posts out of him. I do think it's stupid to call Alex out on stifling conversation.

<->

##Vote: Meeple He needs to post more, and not just OMGUS- it was basically a textbook case of this. I read his post as "I didn't like Kilga and Rat voting for me, and nobody else paid attention, so they're bad!" I find it more suspicious that Meeple basically tagged on to an incorrect argument (that he got wrong anyway) than Alex letting him slide at the moment, but I had trouble deciding which looked worse to me.

<->

Soppy's vote for Excal seemed to be based off one real sentence, so I'd like him to elaborate a little on his choice- as well as his vote for Alex today, which isn't slamming him for the same reason I am at the moment. Kinda leery of Cid was well for dredging up the initial stifling conversation thing as a major point. After reflection, I do see it as a springboard.

961

Forum Games / Re: Clue Mafia - Day 1

« on: February 25, 2008, 01:49:52 PM »

On Excal, seeing as he's on the block.

-I don't have a problem with him going after Corwin for not dropping his vote on Meeple... or at least I didn't at the time, and basically agreed with him about Corwin skirting discussion. I consider that point to be relatively minor at this stage, so

-I do think think he overstated it somewhat with the -2 to hammer/20% thing. It didn't really look good, but it didn't feel like a strong case.

-The stuff on him and me looking like a pair. We've been thinking along some similar lines, but I disliked part of his early posts against Cor from the start (see my above point for what I'm talking about.) Otherwise, though, I don't see his convergence with my opinion as anything but logical.

-He's voting for Cid in an effort to make him speak. I don't really get where Cor was coming from in his latest post with regards to the space of ten minutes thing; he'd made it fairly clear that he wanted Cid to talk, and actually I would probably have been more leery of him leaving a vote on Cor at that stage of the day.

-However, Cor did catch him holding a double-standard with regard to when that kind of pressure vote is allowed.

He said he'd be around for deadline, and I'm not going to be. Since it's day 1, according to Shale's rules, the person with the most votes will hang today- so I'm not going to vote to close this here, as I might have otherwise done. I can see two relatively minor problems with Excal; his weird talk on percentages and stuff which I'd generally be willing to let go. However, he's twisted a bit on his stance on pressure votes and been a tad hypocritical. I'm not strongly opposed to his lynch.

All told, I'd rather Meeple was lynched today for reasons I've outlined in previous posts (and I find it bizzare that Alex, in particular, is willing to call the whole mistake argument irrelevant; this just isn't the attitude I've seen from him in past games at all; I generally associate him with stomping on the attitude Meeple took quite heavily.)

962

Forum Games / Re: Clue Mafia - Day 1

« on: February 25, 2008, 08:53:48 AM »

Re: Meeple

What I mean is that by saying 'people can be wrong!' sounded like a tacit assumption that you're going to let people off when they are. Although it's true that consistant mistakes are worse than an individual one, that doesn't alleviate the original concern.

Also, you're missing the point of how Mistakes can come from misinterpretations, reading quickly and not thoroughly, what have you.  Its not just "rar, I wasn't reading, I'll make an assumption!"  No, you can't just go "NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO MAKE MISTAKES!" like you are.  Huge difference between "one mistake" and "consistent."  Like I said with my Super point; he made MULTIPLE mistakes over and over again...of the same nature.  This was indeed pretty bad.  The first few times he did it, it was brushed off as simple confusion, which does happen, both town and scum alike.

I tend to associate 'reading quickly and not thoroughly' as *more likely* to be a scum thing to do than a town thing in general, anyhow. You're mentioning that you weren't hammering the point, and that's true, but you were still completely wrong with your first try.

As far me saying that you're blaming us for following up your mistakes. Well. Here's why I took that to be what you meant.

You keep going on about this whole "OMG INCORRECT THING!" and frankly, you're looking too into it as far as I'm concerned.

(words)

I act this way regardless, I say things like that regardless, really feels like you need more than basing off my Suikomafia Scumplay than that.

This basically read to me as "I did something wrong, but it's your problem if you follow it up." I understand that you also say in the same post that we're right to go after you.

I find a mistake more compelling than the other cases thus far, which are more a matter of disagreeing with the conclusions that people have reached rather than them outright getting facts wrong.

Also, when you say I'm making a BIG DEAL about it, keep in mind that my post went over things I found wrong with other people as well. It remained the strongest point I had against anyone. The main reason you have a vote on Cor, it seems, is that he kept his vote on you longer than necessary- except at the time of your post, he's actually voting for me. Then you follow it up with an analogy to Suikomafia which I don't understand- someone voted for you, you OMGUS'd them, and then someone else was voting for you based on the OMGUS? What's that got to do with this? Clarify if I'm missing something there.

<->

Re: Corwin

I pretty much used the same quote in the post I mentioned 'stifling', but if the word really troubles you, I can find a suitable synonym. You are basically jumping at two people trying to get things started, and quite hypocritically at that. My main attack on you was that for all your talk, what have you brought to the table that's new? You go on attacking both myself and Sopko for finding our reasons for the Meeple votes in question flimsy for different reasons, repeatedly attacking our lack of participation.

For the period in which I was posting last night, it didn't seem like either of you were participating much; Soppy dropped a few lines on his vote, you weren't really talking much until Excal questioned you. That's changed since, but can you seriously say that it wasn't a valid call at the time? What I mainly see is that at the time, you both said 'let's get things started!' but it didn't seem like you were posting very much new yourselves, whereas I felt my accusation of Soppy was a new thing.

Obligatory disclaimers about fairness cast aside, hypocrisy doesn't really look good to me. Your entire input up to that point was questioning the two people who tried to get discussion going, voting for one of them and calling the other into suspicion. You are echoing Excal, who keeps on going gravely about the dire consequences of our votes in percentages and other scary things. So yes, let's apply your own standards to yourself.

The main point I echoed Excal on was that it was weird for you to not have moved your vote from Meeple when you didn't seem to really think it was valid and were more suspicious of another case. It had nothing to do with his thoughts on calling percentages out, which I have already stated I thought was foolish.

This is an earlier post. Yes, you protest Alex's characterization. And the proof you bring is... what, exactly? That you used a vote on Sopko, whom you considered mildly scummy. Which is what Sopko did to Meeple. Except you disagreed it actually created discussion then.

Yes. At the time, I believe it was stupid to call Meeple for flying under the radar. I still do, but I can accept that it was done in the name of discussion. I didn't read it like that at the time.

"I never did this openly. I found some flimsy reason to attach to this, instead, which makes it all okay."
In any case. You yourself note that there are still many people yet to weigh in. And yet, the two you choose to go after are those that are actually posting and trying to get things going. If that and the rest don't give the impression of trying to clamp down on discussion by punishing anyone daring to step out of line and go past the joke stage, what exactly would? "I want to joke around more, so I'm voting for the people who try to go past it." <-- this?

Okay. This is a response to my latest post to date: http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=437.msg9699#msg9699

If disagreeing and arguing with someone's position is not beginning a discussion or debate, but instead stifling it, then what IS beginning such a debate?

I don't see how it's implied that I was saying "I want to joke around more, better attack people discussing things!" I had only launched an actual attack on you well after others had joined the discussion and were taking it seriously. To call my attack on you some kind of attempt to discourage debate is misrepresenting my intention.

You never address me calling you out on where you got the idea that my actions somehow stemmed from a desire to avoid looking bad.

On the you not posting because you were looking bad thing, it came out of this.

Corwin said...

Portraying a second vote in terms of -2 to hammer is quite the mischaracterization, I'm afraid. It also looks quite nasty, even though three people would actually be needed to the majority. The only way to avoid this... why, it is not to vote in any meaningful fashion!

I read this as "It will look bad if I did that. So I didn't." I took this to be your intended stance, although after going over it again, I'm wondering if I got things confused with something else you meant wrt Excal's post. Care to clarify that for me?

Okay. So your stated contribution to discussion is attacking the people who tried to start it, defending yourself, agreeing with another player and going on about how you are this awesome person that contributes while the others pretty much don't. And I even managed to type this with a straight face. Up until your recent post voting for Meeple, I can't see anything remotely unique in your posts. Unlike Alex, I should be around for the deadline, so I'm not moving my vote yet. There is ample time to do this.

A brief comment on said post of Rat's: while I agreed that Sopko's reasons didn't look so hot, I disagreed with voting based on it and said as much. I don't see how that contradicts any of my views, since I don't fault you for having valid suspicions, but for what you did with them.

I used my suspicions as the basis for a vote, which was on a topic nobody had yet covered. I don't really see how this is a tell, as you admit my suspicions are indeed valid; I believe I've established that I just wait around when I see problems.

963

Forum Games / Re: Clue Mafia - Day 1

« on: February 25, 2008, 04:50:32 AM »

I still do not get how my vote for Soppy constitutes anti-discussion. It's just ridiculous. I had to *agree* or *disagree* with Soppy's reasoning for voting for Meeple, and if that was how he was trying to prod discussion forward, I took that to the logical conclusion given my stance on his reason. What else was I supposed to do, go "You're wrong, Soppy!" and leave my vote on Excal? I'm obviously not anti-talk, and maintain that it was mainly me that propelled conversation forward at that time of the game.

Anyway. I will grant that the case against Soppy is not really that strong, but it had as much merit as could be had at this point in the game. I don't really subscribe to a policy of 'let's wait until someone passes a certain threshold of badness in their posts to vote for them' so much as 'let's vote for who seems most suspicious, regardless of scale'. I hope that clears this up, because I'm getting tired of being mischaracterized like this and seeing people spout out that viewpoint without bothering to confirm it.

<->

Which leaves me suspicious of the following people.

Alex- for bringing it up. He admitted it was flimsy himself and unvoted, but it still really baffles me how he came to the conclusion in the first place. A vote or case isn't justified just becase it 'gets things going', and when I'd identified what seemed an actual flaw in Soppy's reasoning, why should I not point it out and back it up with a vote? Voting to get people talking is the done thing. *Voting* is the done thing, and leaving my vote on Excal- which was a jokevote- compared to putting it on someone who'd done something wrong, however slight- that seemed the worse option to me.

Meeple- for pretty much the same reason Kilga identified. I can't really put it better than him; it's basically Meeple not paying attention exactly what I said around the him and Soppy thing. Of course, he figured he was wrong...

People are allowed to be wrong.

no they're not, actually. This isn't even a defensible position. If you're wrong, you've made a mistake. If you're town, you're going to have to admit it- as you have- and deal with it as best you can, but it is very definately BAD. Generally your post actually reads as a lot of analogies that have almost nothing to do with the actual situation, and some complaining about your own flaws and telling us we shouldn't pay much attention to them.  You pay attention to them, and don't blame us when we call you on them!

Other people look to be in various states of... bad... to me, which is worrisome. Cid needs to talk more, for one. Corwin, as I think his vote for me is misplaced (I DID spur discussion, his crap on soft targetness.. bah, it's all in my other post here- http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=437.msg9699#msg9699. I also dislike how he agreed that I was stifling discussion... despite... agreeing with what I'd said. If you think what I said is truth, why accuse me of such?) I don't really like Excal positing 'but I'm scared of -2 to hammer!' as a legitimate excuse. Most of this stuff has been covered before and seems valid enough to me.

But, anyway. ##Unvote, ##Vote: Meeple. Corwin and Alex... neither of 'em look great. But while I hated how Corwin picked up on Alex's stupid idea, Meeple did likewise and basically made stuff up that was total bunk to fit it. Alex himself is still suspect for originating it. He took it off later and called it 'discussion-prodding'. But at least he's not totally ignoring what I actually said... although I still think he's hypocrtical for agreeing with me on calling out Soppy and then voting for me for... calling out Soppy.

Meeple, on the other hand, said I didn't do what I actually did do. Sure, he admitteded he made a mistake. And then talked about how mistakes are ok. I'm inclined to cut people a little slack on the early day 1 voteprodding at this point- more than I'm willing to do for these kind of stances and errors.

964

Forum Games / Re: Clue Mafia - Day 1

« on: February 24, 2008, 09:49:25 PM »

Can someone try to point out exactly how I'm pulling this discussion-stifling thing? It seems like Alex said one thing that's pretty damn unfair to say and everyone else is nodding along with it.

As for why I attacked both Cor and Soppy for flimsy reasoning, that's because it *was* flimsy reasoning on both counts, and merely happened to be flimsy in different ways.

What I've brought to the table? Let's see, I attacked Soppy for flimsy reasoning, responded to your attempt to start discussion with actual questions rather than simply going 'yeah, discussion would be nice!', was forced to defend my position and did so, and both elaborated on the position Excal took, which I agreed with, and pointed out that for people trying to push the whole 'let's discuss things!' angle have *not really furthered this themselves*. (Where was I stifling discussion again? Where were either you or Soppy really promoting it or getting involved?)

What had you brought to the table when I made that claim? Basically nodding your head alongside me and rambling about why you're not voting.

You pull the 'soft target' line. This usually reads to me as someone thinking "You're attacking someone who has a reasonable case against them, but I don't like you/do like them and will thus attack you over attacking them."

<->

Meeple: I *didn't* stifle serious discussion. Actually read my posts and make up your own mind. I think you're asking why I didn't vote on Corwin, who jokevoted, and not Sopko, who had a reason? It's because I felt his reason was bad and *wrong*, while Cor wasn't making an attempt to vote in such a fashion (i.e. trying to attach a nonsensical reason to his vote.) Also, I am so not an easy target.

Soppy: Say something, anything, that's more than a couple lines.

Alex: Since you think I'm trying to stifle discussion, I want you to explain, with quotes, exactly how I was supposed to be trying to accomplish this. Oh, anyone else is free to answer this, except I don't think anyone will be able to because I wasn't and there isn't really any evidence of such.

965

Forum Games / Re: Clue Mafia - Day 1

« on: February 24, 2008, 12:14:08 PM »

Well, the obvious reason to withdraw a vote is to place it on someone who seems more suspicious than your previous target. Rather than put your money where your mouth is, so to speak, you avoid voting for someone who seems suspicious to you because you're worried about looking bad?

Keep in mind that you- and Sopko- are leaving Meeple at 2 votes *despite acknowledging that his play has not yet contained any meaningful slips, mistakes, or errors*. I would rather see someone who has something of a case against them with three votes than someone with effectively no case at 2, or at the *least* not see 2 votes- the beginnings of a 'serious' train- on someone who has not really done anything to earn it.

The concerns about her entering 'hammer reach' are.. a bit overblown. -2 isn't really that close; the game's pretty small, after all. It isn't like anyone is going to get away with a sudden surprise hammer, either.

Beyond that- and I was mainly echoing Excal before, I realise- I find it strange that when I look at both yourself and Sopko, neither of you are actually saying anything much. In Sopko's case, he's offered a passing defence for his actions which might be forgivable for day one. You yourself have agreed with me on Soppy and clarified some things for him.

Neither of you have really brought much new to the table since; to be fair, there hasn't been much time, and a lot of people have yet to weigh in. Still, it's odd that the two who seemed most keen to get discussion started have said the least, at least until they're actually questioned. I'd like to hear what both of you think about the past page or so in general, particularly over Alex's post.

966

Forum Games / Re: Clue Mafia - Day 1

« on: February 24, 2008, 10:16:48 AM »

Alex: I *was* and *am* talking about it, what's your point? I disagreed with his contention. I found it an illogical reason to vote for Meeple and thus voted for Sopko. I don't get at all why I shouldn't have been pressing it at that point you mentioned, either. Soppy's reason remains suspect to me, and just because it is apparently the Very First Serious Thing Said!(tm) doesn't make the actual content any *better* and I'm baffled as to why you'd think so.

Soppy: I meant one hour between *his* and *your* posts, not his own posts. I found it odd that you called him for flying under the radar when he, well, had *just posted*. If you're pointing to the distance between his posts as a legitimate reason for voting him, then I think that's a stupid call to make when it's so early in the game. I don't really know how else to quantify it, and that line of thought leaves me somewhat bemused.

967

Forum Games / Re: Clue Mafia - Day 1

« on: February 24, 2008, 09:28:06 AM »

Alex:  I'm hardly stifling serious discussion. I do have a view on the transition from 'jokevote' to 'serious' that indicates it doesn't usually just happen spontaneously because someone suggests it, but it's not like I told Cor "No! We Cannot Do That!" and did nothing to create discussion myself.

Instead, I voted for Soppy, mainly because he called Meeple out for what is apparently meant to be a lack of posting, despite less than an hour between the posts. How can he really be said to be flying under the radar? You actually seem to *agree* with me-

Rat's neutral - on the one hand he's calling Sopko on starting discussion, mildly bad, but I agree with his having a problem with the characterization of Meeple Sopko's giving.

I never called him out on starting discussion. It's his reason that raised my eyebrow. On this note, however, given how *early it is in the game*, is it not unusual to call people out for flying under the radar? Especially when they *have been posting?* The first day isn't even half over!

968

Forum Games / Re: Clue Mafia - Day 1

« on: February 24, 2008, 08:39:40 AM »

Soppy: Well, why didn't you reconsider your vote, if his response was indeed in a timely fashion?

Corwin: Given that you're voting for Meeple on the basis of what amounts to a joke, I'd say we're still in the process of shifting. What do you think of Soppy's vote?

969

Forum Games / Re: Clue Mafia - Day 1

« on: February 24, 2008, 08:10:51 AM »

The transition from 'joke' to 'serious' is rarely instantaneous. As far as I can tell, it's always been a slow escalation of small facts building up over the first day. However, I DO have one thing.

Soppy, why'd you say Meeple was flying under the radar? What with him posting right before you and all, it's a bit strange. What did you mean, exactly? In the name of prodding for an answer...

##Unvote, ##Vote: Sopko

And, well. Since you asked, really, Corwin, why'd you push Meeple ahead in particular?

970

Forum Games / Re: Clue Mafia - Day 1

« on: February 24, 2008, 04:05:23 AM »

Surely, Professor Plum, as the psychiatrist amongst us, it is you who must answer such questions! I do not believe in medicine via democracy, and it would baffle me that a... respected... professional such as yourself would succumb to such a concept!

971

Forum Games / Re: Clue Mafia - Day 1

« on: February 23, 2008, 11:07:35 PM »

Greetings, chaps! We'll deduce the identity of those blighters and give them what for, by Jove, or my name isn't Mustard!

And from what I've learned about high-class crime in the past, I've determined that it's always the butler.

##Vote: Excal

972

Forum Games / Re: Small game signups: Clue Mafia

« on: February 23, 2008, 12:48:11 AM »

Con'fd.

973

Forum Games / Re: Small game signups: Clue Mafia

« on: February 22, 2008, 01:01:15 AM »

IN

974

Forum Games / Re: Classical Composer Mafia: Early signups

« on: February 22, 2008, 12:46:42 AM »

SOOOOOOOOO people are signing up for this one now, right?

975

Forum Games / Re: Ayreon Mafia - signup topic.

« on: February 11, 2008, 09:06:07 AM »

You're doing this on purpose, aren't you? >_<