Fire Emblem Mafia (Game Topic)

[Excal]

Right.  I'd like some similar definitions from anyone else who wants to use that term in the future as well.  I know that both Ciato and Meep have used it, and it's a poor term to use as it can mean many different things, and encourages us to interpret it as how we think it to mean, and not how the user intends it.  More over, it can be used to suggest, as Tom just said, that someone is scummy for attacking someone who cannot adequatly respond, regardless of whether or not there is any truth in their accusations, which makes it a great term for emotional manipulation, and avoiding rational arguments that cannot be refuted.

Now, for thoughts on the rest of you.

Alex...  I think I agree with Tom here.  I cannot agree with his viewpoint that day one conversation is meaningless.  But, his expanded viewpoint that we get too wrapped up in the trivialities we need to use to decide things on this day does mesh with some of what I've noticed here.  Mostly, no opinion on him right now.  He's only really spoken on half the game, tried to argue game logic to steer us to ground he prefers, and made an interesting point of logic that seems fairly compelling to me.  That scum would want to have at least one voter on the target with three votes on him.

Granted, I still have a very neutral read on him, as Alex is a good chameleon and it won't be until he starts on the hard analysis that any tells will start showing.  But for now, I'm ok with what I see here.


Meeple...  I don't have that many issues with mono-focus, or at least not this one.  There's only so much going around, and if we never commit to a case, then we'll never get anywhere.  So, his going whole-heartedly after Tom is something I can understand.

[AndrewRogue]

Working up a post.

[AndrewRogue]

Well. I have a question here, actually. Ciato! What are you actually looking for from me? I feel like I have been attempting to provide analysis (and, to some degree, I think I've certainly succeeded). Any clue on what you actually think I'm lacking?

[Luther Lansfeld]

I'm not saying you have to megapost about everything. But acknowledging that other people exist would be nice.

I'm not going to acknowledge stuff I feel is meaningless other than to say it is meaningless and promoting meaningless discussion is proscum.  Seriously, go reread Clue Mafia.  The unfortunately traditional DL style is for everyone to jump on pet cases and titanically overinflate meaningless stuff day 1, for fear of being seen as lurky, and then stick with it forever and never work with flip information or admit they're wrong for fear of being seen as flipfloppy.  Playing that way leads to certain death for town.  I'm not going to do it and I am going to say that promoting that playstyle is scummy.

*shrugs* You don't have to pursue a case against people all the time; in the end, this is a game about discussion, and if you refuse to discuss things you are doing a disservice to town. If no one is willing to have discussions on things outside their small scope, then this Day 1 is going to last until July.

Everything you've said so far in this game is so... foreign to me that I'm not sure what to say to you. If previous games have not indicated that our playstyles are completely polar opposite, this one has. However, this conversation is deja vu in some ways; we had similar clashing of views over playstyles (focusing on one target vs. trying to look at more than one person) and it ended up pretty damn ugly in Randomafia. I'm just going to accept that I don't understand you at all. <_<

Andy, mostly but I'd like to see what your general view on other people is, and if there are any interactions that catch your eye in particular. Mostly I find that there are weak cases on several people, and seeing other people's general reactions to eachother (and maybe I'm just overreacting to a certain part of someone's behavior or whatever, or maybe there's a case on someone I didn't notice) is something I find helpful. Also, your voting for Meeple is based on his attack on Tom and his content lacking? You said that you find Tom's behavior odd as well; personally I find them about on equal ground thus far. Day 1 is always frustrating because all this little stuff piles up. (Which is a point I concede to Alex about, although I disagree with his method of dealing with it.)

[Meeplelard]

Ok, I'm officially back for the night or something! Anyway...

First, Andrew:

It should be said that the hypocrisy argument is pretty weak. My mistakes don't invalidate those of others.

You're right; your mistakes don't invalidate others.  But at the same time, others mistakes don't invalidate yours.  By making a statement about someone doing something that seems off, when you're doing something parallel to that...it doesn't look good.

Anyhow, yes, I do feel your content is a bit lacking. I'm not saying it isn't there, but I have problems with the density to word count ratio. Furthermore, you are using that "new target, new argument" as a fairly serious crutch. While it is good, I don't think your move was particularly ground breaking or anything.

I do try to keep my posts concise, but I always go off on a tangent, or feel I need to go further in depth than I do.  It just happens naturally.
And I just don't see this lack of content.  I've brought a case foward, been responding to others, commenting on points.  Yes, my post size isn't indicative of my content, which as I said, is something I need to work on in general (not just in Mafia, but in life.  This isn't something that's going to happen over night granted.)

I don't know; your case on I don't think I quite understand.  I still feel you're accusing me over a play style more so than anything else, which I just not sure how to take that.

To Ciato:

With that said, Meeple is definitely bothering me with his regurgitation of Rat's points. Pretty much nothing in this last post says anything new at all, and the post before last is a lecture over why LaL is bad (as well as some other points, to be fair). I'm not trying to hold his posting style against him, but I'd like to see some thoughts on people besides EvilTom from him, since basically his last several posts have really only had opinions on EvilTom and Andrew (with some small support for Rat.) Now that we have everyone but our disappearing newbie around, what are your thoughts on others?

Yes, my points I brought up seem very similar to Rat's before mine...but when I was making them, they were unique.  As I say at the end of that very post, Rat Ninja'd me, and beat me to the punch of many of my points.  Nothing I can do about that, though.

As far as other people?

Andrew, if it wasn't obvious in this post, is hard to read.  I'm still not completely sure what his case on me was, as I noted; seems based on my vote against Tom, and then combined with factors like my play style, which seems weird to base off of.

Excal...neutral read, maybe a slight town feel.  He did say he found Alex's post a bit odd, after all, and trying to promote discussion by saying its better to have a lively debate (which I agree; lively debate means that if a mislynch does occur, there's more to work with.)  Hasn't really done anything to stand out one way or another otherwise.

Alex...I dunno what to think about him.  He comes in, doesn't say a lot, more tries to argue against Day 1 arguments, and saying we just need to lynch from what I gather.  What I find odd about him is he claims there haven't been other points raised besides Tom being uncivil.  Um, what?  Tom's done more than be uncivil; don't go claiming that's the only point that's been raised.  Whether you think its enough or not is not quite the same as there being no other points.  At the same time, Tom does bring up a point that Alex wouldn't be one to fall into that kind of easy prey.  Dunno, still something feels off about Alex's general interaction.  Comes in, just kind of discounts all discussion, makes a vote on El-Cid for going against Lurkers, and then just sort of goes against the idea of having discussions on Day 1.  Yes, day 1 lynches are based off arbitrary suspicions...but its best to discuss those suspicions rather than just go with the flow and hope something good comes out of it.
Guess its more just bad town play than scum play, but...argh, I just don't understand the logic he's getting at either way.

Ciato hasn't done much to show something one way or another, like Excal.  Though, her calling me out on mimicing Rat's points when I  stated in that post that he posted that while I was posting my points does make her seem like she's not paying complete attention.  So I'm getting a slight scum vibe from her as a result.

El-Cid...I don't see what's scummy about him.  I agree with his side of the argument against Alex.  I also don't get what Alex is attacking him for.  He's been...doing nothing out of the ordinary that others haven't done, and is getting called on it?

Lets look at the initial vote!

Looking at this, my first reaction is that probably one of the people on Andrew right now is scum.  Out of those three, El Cid's been pushing the LAL/"better have relevant content day 1!" line furthest, then also indicated a switch to Tom on civility, when... I don't really think he's been that uncivil.  That's about all I got so far.

Alex's saying that El-Cid pushed LAL the most out of the people who are on Andrew.

Well, ok, lets look at El-Cid's posts prior to Alex!

His first post of anything remotely close to content is his vote on GTAU.  He basically just follows Excal's lead of voting GTAU in order to prod him into voting.  He then goes idle for some time.
Worth noting, while done in a bit of a humor toned style, he's promoting "We have to talk!"  He doesn't say anything about relevance, just that talking is needed to get anywhere, regardless, and if we just abuse the Unlimited Time thing, all it proves is that "Limitless Days Mafia Games don't work" (he doesn't say that, this is my own personal input.)

His next post of content (since one of his posts is just a question about Mod Killing GTAU.)  At this point, he's saying we have some content to work with, and finds Andrew coming in and saying nothing just as bad, and would prefer voting on him until we get some mention about the Mod Kill situation.  He says Alex needed to bring something interesting when he comes back since he was gone for a while...no, I don't see what's wrong with this.

I mean, to branch off, compare Andrew's first post of real content (his big one) to Alex's "return" post (for lack of a better description.)  Andrew goes in depth, and while the tone was aggressive, finger pointing, etc., it was still showing he was catching up.  Alex, flip side, gives a brief post, and then we have him posting on El-Cid.  Basically, El-Cid wants him to say something of content...but Alex doesn't give him what he (and I'm sure others) wanted, and ultimately votes against him.  Hmm...interesting connection there, though unsure that it says anything as I think others have eluded the same "Alex better say stuff when he comes back!" thing.

Anyway, the rest of his posts don't really have much on regards of "Have content!" barring a line to Excal regarding "If there's no content, make some!"  which is fair, but either way, Alex is overstating how much El-Cid is doing that.  Not to mention he wasn't really going with LAL all that much.  Yes, he went after 2 Lurkers, but...
The case on GTAU became awkward, and his reason on Andrew seemed legit; Andrew came in, posted, said nothing in that post, disappeared.  Can't blame him for swapping votes there, especially since he doesn't seem to think there's much of a strong case on anyone else.

So...yeah, Alex is calling Cid out for...wanting to have discussions, thinking Tom's behavior was a bit uncalled for (and he wasn't alone on that; again, Rat was the first one who brought up something regarding Tom's tone), and now thinking on it, he's really going against any sort of Town like behavior in general.

In the end, Alex is stifling discussion, no matter how you look at it.  Saying there's no relevant info on Day 1, LAL is not relevant either, etc.  I...what do we do then?  Randomly train one person by picking their name out of a hat, and hope they're scum?

Alex is looking bad right now.  I still have issues with EvilTom, but...I just can't agree with Alex's stance at all.  Flipside, El-Cid's side of the argument seems pretty clean to me.  EvilTom...eh, I dunno; just feel badly about him.

But EvilTom isn't promoting what feels like bad town playing, on the flipside.  Alex...if he's not scum, he's being awful as a town. 

Not to mention, Alex much like Andrew is going against my posting style, when he KNOWS very well I've posted in this exact manner on Day 1 in the past.  I know; I'm using the same defense everytime, and it looks annoying, but...please. 

Difference is, Andrew has brought forth more content beyond that.  Alex didn't really bring forth anything but being Anti Discussion at the moment.  And made a case on El-Cid I just don't follow. 

As a result...

##Unvote: Eviltom
##Vote: SirAlex

I realize I said I was going to make this post short but...ended up going on a tangent I didn't expect to after reanalyzing some posts regarding Alex.


...and I get Ninja'd by Ciato!

[Guide To An Uprising]

I am terribly sorry for my absence, it seems while I was returning back to my home state (MA), the game started without my knowledge until I found out today at exactly ten-thirty PM (re:Yahoo e-mail; I thank you for that). Real life can sometimes be cruel and unmerciful. Even so, I have never even played this game before and I thought it would be fun to give it a try.

I apologize for I was not able to post due to my internet source being unexpectedly pulled away from me (re: laptop, since it was actually my cousin's) while I was staying in the mountains and for the time I was not online. Plus, I was pretty busy at the resort...little kids are annoying sometimes.

Also, I'm sorry to mention I didn't know how to play. XD;

I have not decided to unvote someone or vote as of yet.

[Excal]

Hmm, and here I was getting pretty close to feeling comfortable in making my commentary and a vote.  Honestly, as you haven't been officially killed yet, I've got no problems considering you still in the game until Gate comes in with a word of Mod announcement.

That said, while the heads up is nice, read the rules, and make a nice intro post giving your thoughts on what's going on, and the people here.  I'm glad we have no deadline, because I know I want a chance to banter with you, and see you interact with others before this day ends.

Anyways, food calls.  Will have more concise thoughts when I return.

[Carthrat]

This feels like swimming in... molasses is the term? It's more like a swamp.

On Alex: I'm really starting to take issue... with people slamming Alex for his stance on discussion. Although he could stand to, uh, write down his words better, he's repeatedly stated that the following two things are bad;

1) Subscribing to LAL too much.
2) Jumping on minor points and riding them throughout the game.

He's gone for a fairly staightforward attack on Cid. The biggest complaint I have with him is that he seems to be ignoring cases that don't suit him. But as for the idea that he's stifling discussion.. well.. maybe he is, but on a topic on which there's very little to actually *discuss*. I don't find anything inconsistant in his stance, and nor do I actually think it's likely to hurt us later on.

I did have doubts after I read his posts, but his response satisfied me for now. The question for his detractors is, then, if they're willing to buy it. People have, I feel (myself included), focused on individual sentences of his more than the meaning of the message.

<->

On Excal: Excal, to be blunt, now I'm finding you slightly unnerving. Your posting is... really concilatory. Amiable. Friendly, almost! I'm not sure I like it.[/i] We're at a point in day 1 where people are going to need to take stands if we're to progress further. My feeling is that you're hanging back and posting in a manner that attempts to please everyone present at the expense of making, I dunno. Strong statements.

Words are used up on stuff like 'what is an easy target' which, while a potentially interesting question, isn't really going to further anything.

In short. You are too nice. Fix it. Maybe by voting, that'd be swell.

<->

Tom's backed off on me after his attack. Mmm. I still.. don't like his earlier play, but he seems to have been fixing it. Could go either way. I don't like to back off on this; out of everyone in day 1, he's still pinged the worst to me.

However, I'm going to reconsider Meeple and Cid. Just don't think Alex is voteworthy. Cid OMGUS'd Alex, and both of them capitalized upon portions of Alex's post and seemed to exaggerate his stance in ways I don't think it was intended. If I change, it'll likely be to one of them.

<->

GTAU exists what. Uh. Ok. Quick primer on Mafia and how to play.

1) There is a Town; they form a large majority.
2) There are Scum; we don't know who they are, but they hide amongst us, pretending to be townies.

3) The goal is for one side to eliminate the other. This is done in two ways.
3a) Via a lynch each 'day', which corresponds to a turn of gametime. Lynches are decided on by the players as a whole, who vote on it; once a majority is reached (5 people, for today), then that person is summarily killed, and 'day' becomes 'night'.
3b) During 'night', the mafia select one person in secret, and that person dies the next day. In this way the mafia slowly eliminate the entire town... unless they are discovered first.

4) There may or may not be people who were given special powers, such as the ability to check one player each night and determine if they are scum or town.

In general, the focus of the game is on discussion; people talk about who to lynch each day and try to determine who the scum are from their actions; in general, scum want to avoid getting lynched and this extends to their buddies. We try to catch scum by carefully reading what is said, seeing if people are behaving in odd ways, know things they shouldn't, are confident about things that a townie shouldn't confident about, etc.

There are various trends and patterns in games of mafia, I'm sure you'll see them mentioned many times. There's no real surefire method for finding scum (or hiding from town); it's about interaction and guessing, which is of course where the fun comes from.

[Ranmilia]

In the end, Alex is stifling discussion, no matter how you look at it.  Saying there's no relevant info on Day 1, LAL is not relevant either, etc.  I...what do we do then?  Randomly train one person by picking their name out of a hat, and hope they're scum?

A.  There's a difference between saying all discussion is bad and saying this amount of discussion on this particular subject is bad.  I thought this was obvious in my posts.  Apparently I'm bad at writing my words down.  I don't know how to put it any better. 

B.  Yes, I'm a pretty big fan of picking a random person day 1, wagoning them up a ways and seeing what happens.  (Not necessarily lynching them.)  Interesting and actually notable things tend to happen when someone gets up to -2 or -1.  Unfortunately I came into this game a bit too late to try and start that process.

[Meeplelard]

Well, Alex, if I may ask a simple question...

Why try and wagon El-Cid of all people then?  He had no votes on him, and didn't really have a strong case on him either at the time, when people were clearly looking for a case.  Wouldn't it have been more sensible, if I'm reading it right, to go after someone with actual votes on them, rather than pick someone new altogether?

Granted, the "pick someone new" may be the very core reason behind WHY you chose El-Cid specifically, but care to elaborate some?

[Excal]

Sorry, Rat.  Looks like I let my Canayjin show, eh?  Wait!  No!  That's the problem, not the solution!  Bite me, Rat!  I'll be bloody nice and conciliatory if I bloody well feel like it, and there's not a bloody thing you can do about it!  Well...  maybe vote for me...  But besides that, there's not a thing you can do!  So HA!


Now, let's take a look at the field.

Guide lives!  This is, well...  random, but not terribly useful outside the aspect that Gate probably won't need to kill the role.  That said, I'm still waiting for something here, and newbie or not, he's posted, which means the clock is ticking.  But, I've said what I want from him above, so he can respond to that when he's caught up.

Rat?  Looks the towniest to me so far, as he's been playing a good game of catching things, and keeping people on their toes.  Generally, been active in keeping debate going, and has been saying a lot of things which I agree with. 

Alex...  he's very neutral right now.  That said, while I do see where people get the idea that he's stifling debate, I cannot agree.  He's never been hot for Day 1, and his argument is pretty cleanly that we shouldn't invest ourselves too deeply into the events of this day.  He's also trying to look for something more concrete than the random things we're talking about, and random slips of the tongue or personality to base his vote off of, which I can also agree with.  So, again, I don't see any gain to be gotten by going in this direction today, though I am somewhat wary of the terseness of his posts.

Ciato...  She's mostly been hanging back and observing so far as I can tell, with the occasional question.  Nothing to distinguish her one way or the other thus far.

El Cid is an interesting case, and the first person on this list I'd toss a vote at today.  He has been bouncing around a bit, and he does have his argument with Alex.  But...  Generally, I've agreed with his reasoning for his votes, and the argument with Alex, in his case, feels like it's a townie's perspective he's going into it with.  That said, he was also one of the three people on the one train we had going, and was fairly quick to turn his sights on Alex after he dared to accuse El Cid of something.  So, this is something worth watching.

Andy...  started off poorly, and frankly?  I agree that he had earned those three votes, and I was considering a vote for him as well when he finally showed up in force and started posting.  While he's been alright for the most part, I do find notable the fact that he's been mixing his criticism of Meeple's style in with his reasons for voting Meeple and the general assault on him.  Picking a target and going with it, yes.  But personal attacks are not kosher, and are a favoured tool of scum in order to knock a chosen target off balance and use their emotional responces to make them look bad and encourage a lynch.  So, that raises some serious red flags.

Dread Thomas is another of those people who I simply have a hard time reading.  That said, he's shown poor attention to the details of what he posts, has a nasty tendency of attacking and harrassing people in his posts, and then voting somewhere else, attacking people for something they haven't had a chance to react to, and then OMGUSing them when they dare to call him on it.  And this is on top of being fairly surly about everything.  If it weren't for the fact that this behaviour is not that far off the norm for you, and that I have a better candidate, you'd have my vote.  But, as it stands, you are not presently my priority.

##Vote: Meeplelard

Meep is.  My main issues here stem from his having a fairly heavy focus on Tom for most of the game, arguments that are mostly similar to those used by others but in different words, and then his switch for Alex in his last post, with barely a mention of Tom?  Especially connected with a huge rant that doesn't seem to take into consideration the nuances of Alex's posts, but does seem to feel that El Cid needs defending, despite the fact that he misses out on the main reason why Alex chose to pick the three people that he did.

I'm not confident in this vote, but it's the one I feel the best about.

[VySaika]

Votecount in the morning, but as he showed back up while I was searching for a replacement, I suppose we can let Guide stay in the game. Just wanted to lay down Word Of Mod on that before crashing.

Just try to keep posting now, eh?

[EvilTom]

Working up a post.

Well. I have a question here, actually. Ciato! What are you actually looking for from me? I feel like I have been attempting to provide analysis (and, to some degree, I think I've certainly succeeded). Any clue on what you actually think I'm lacking?

...

Andrew, did it really take you 22 minutes to come up with that? I was expecting something more epic after the post-placeholder.
Maybe I'm just nitpicking, but I was expecting something more when you said 'working up a post'.

I'm surprised nobody else picked up on it, especially after people (such as myself) kicked you earlier on for not saying much.

<->

Hmm, reading over all the new developments while writing up an essay on LAW!

Welcome to the game GTAU, in the nick of time too! Read over everything and make some contributions over who you think should be lynched. A fresh opinion will be nice.

[Sierra]

Read over recent developments; mulling over stuff, not sure what to write just yet. Heading out to work right now, but I'll have something to say in a couple hours once the morning's busyness dies down.

[Luther Lansfeld]

Ciato hasn't done much to show something one way or another, like Excal.  Though, her calling me out on mimicing Rat's points when I  stated in that post that he posted that while I was posting my points does make her seem like she's not paying complete attention.  So I'm getting a slight scum vibe from her as a result.

Meeple: You know there's an option in the forums called "While you were typing your post, someone else has posted!", right? (I'm not sure how you couldn't.) I utilize this very nifty feature and I think you should too. More or less I don't think there's an excuse for repeating what someone else has just said like you act like there is since the forum TELLS YOU when someone has posted before you! This seems rather painfully obvious to me.

Working up a post.

Well. I have a question here, actually. Ciato! What are you actually looking for from me? I feel like I have been attempting to provide analysis (and, to some degree, I think I've certainly succeeded). Any clue on what you actually think I'm lacking?

...

Andrew, did it really take you 22 minutes to come up with that? I was expecting something more epic after the post-placeholder.
Maybe I'm just nitpicking, but I was expecting something more when you said 'working up a post'.

I was assuming he'd post something during the evening, myself. Hopefully he'll get around to it... rather soon.

[VySaika]

Super Special Awesome Morphtastic Votecount!

(2) Sir Alex - El Cid, Meeple
(1) El Cideon - Alex Andy
(1) Evil Tom - Carthrat Meeple, Meeple
(3) Meeplelard - Andy, Tom, Excal El Cid, Tom
(0) Guide To An Uprising - El-Cid, Carthrat, Excal
(0) Ciato -
(1) AndrewRogue - Ciato Carthrat, Tom, El-Cid
(0) Excal - Tom
(0) Carthrat - Tom

With 9 alive, it takes 5 to lynch.

Meeple is at -2 to Hammer!

Guide To An Uprising needs to continue posting! If you have any questions, feel free to ask me via IM or something.

[Ranmilia]

Well, Alex, if I may ask a simple question...

Why try and wagon El-Cid of all people then?  He had no votes on him, and didn't really have a strong case on him either at the time, when people were clearly looking for a case.  Wouldn't it have been more sensible, if I'm reading it right, to go after someone with actual votes on them, rather than pick someone new altogether?

Granted, the "pick someone new" may be the very core reason behind WHY you chose El-Cid specifically, but care to elaborate some?

Unfortunately I came into this game a bit too late to try and start that process.

Three pages into the game, when I entered, is no longer the time to start a new random wagon.  A wagon did occur, kind of - the one on Andrew - and I'm doing my best to work on what information it provides, which points to Cid at the moment.  I would also be comfortable voting for Meeple and Tom at this point.  (Meeple for his megaposts on LAL and the jump to me, which as Excal pointed out is odd, and Tom for being generally unhelpful.) 

The last three non-mod posts in this thread trigger a deep DO NOT LIKE reaction in me, as do Andrew's "Will post later" comments.  Don't do this.  "Just checking in" or "Will post later" comments are unhelpful - if you can spare the time to look at the thread and feel the need to post, you can take the time to say something.  Ciato's "Waiting for post" is little better, and Tom points this phenomenon out while essentially doing it himself. 

[Sierra]

The last three non-mod posts in this thread trigger a deep DO NOT LIKE reaction in me, as do Andrew's "Will post later" comments.  Don't do this.  "Just checking in" or "Will post later" comments are unhelpful - if you can spare the time to look at the thread and feel the need to post, you can take the time to say something.  Ciato's "Waiting for post" is little better, and Tom points this phenomenon out while essentially doing it himself.

How about posting right now. Is that better? C'mon, man. I think I've been pretty consistent about posting the last few days; if I say I'm going to do it, I bloody well will. This feels like a really trivial thing to hit me for. If someone makes a habit of it, you're right to call them on it, of course.

Will respond to actual arguments in a few minutes (this means Post In Progress, yes; I'm sure this sounds post sounds snippy, so I will make sure to keep it out of the next one).

[Luther Lansfeld]

The last three non-mod posts in this thread trigger a deep DO NOT LIKE reaction in me, as do Andrew's "Will post later" comments.  Don't do this.  "Just checking in" or "Will post later" comments are unhelpful - if you can spare the time to look at the thread and feel the need to post, you can take the time to say something.  Ciato's "Waiting for post" is little better, and Tom points this phenomenon out while essentially doing it himself. 

I'm not sure what you are talking about exactly.  What I meant by that post was more "WTF to Andrew not posting last night", not that I was waiting on him in order for me to post. I already explained when I'd be around again in one of my larger posts, but that doesn't mean I can't address certain things while I am taking a study break.  In fact, that part of the post was just something I saw and noted, the reason I posted was to express my annoyance with Meeple's really bizarre point about me not paying attention.

In fact, you don't seem to be addressing -anyone- at all still, choosing to chide people over posting a reminder that they will post later(and in my case it doesn't seem like you actually read what I said, since I didn't say that!). I would be more understanding about this viewpoint if A) the person was not posting things over long periods (which is why Andrew's post is notable) and B) if we still had the post counter and people were trying to inflate their post count using this method. As is I don't see why Cid in particular (who has made on his promises to post, as he pointed out) looks bad for this.

[Ranmilia]

Yeah, actually, I don't see why Cid in particular is notable for this either.  Note that he's the only one out of those posters I *didn't* even mention by name, and that it's a general statement applying to several people.  Yet he immediately took it personally, to the point of firing off a snippy (his description - and he was attacking Tom for being uncivil!) response before finishing his promised lengthy post, and Ciato quickly joined in with Cid in saying I was somehow singling him out for this.  THIS, I find very interesting indeed.

Ciato has also handily pointed out why I am chiding people for post promises.  They are pointless and have no effect other than to make people wait for them or inspire more pointless posts.  I got the impression from her tone that she was waiting on Andrew - even if I was wrong, her post was still unhelpful aside from the issue of Andrew's post promises, and my point stands. 

[Sierra]

A.  There's a difference between saying all discussion is bad and saying this amount of discussion on this particular subject is bad.  I thought this was obvious in my posts.  Apparently I'm bad at writing my words down.  I don't know how to put it any better.

The trouble is that you actually did say "Day one discussion is generally meaningless." I haven't called you anti-discussion and this isn't an expression I really care for in the first place (genuinely being against all discussion and declaring oneself to be so would be suicidal; I know you're smart enough not to do that regardless of which side you're on). The trouble is that you defended this attitude at length, and the whole notion would be much more acceptable to me with the presence of this qualifier: "But only during day one." Thereafter, we can analyze the day one arguments in light of the cardflip and get new perspectives on people. You may say that talking for the sake of talking is meaningless, but I feel this attitude does a disservice to what may eventually prove to be useful information. Really, that first post you made on your return was so short and insubstantial that I half-suspected you were just trolling to provoke a reaction (if this was the case, you clearly got one).

Now, I realize you claim you spoke poorly and that your intentions are being misconstrued on account of this. Townies screw up sometimes, yeah, but scum can backpedal just as well when they've said something that could be used against them. I'm not saying you are scum, no (though I do still have my vote on you because your entire argument rubbed me the wrong way), I'm just noting that townies admitting mistakes and scum attempts at retconning are pretty much indistinguishable until you know the player's alignment, and are thus rather hard to take seriously.

I should note that your initial reason to vote for me--the possibility that someone on the Andy wagon might be scum--is not something I consider a bad one by itself.

---

Anyway, I need to think about something else. So, general thoughts:

Alex: I've gone on about him extensively, no? I have to point out, though, that I'm not at all convinced that Alex is scum. I simply disagreed with his whole line of argument and it made me uneasy enough that I felt he warranted a vote more than anyone else did at the time. Given that I've acknowledged being innately suspicious of Alex in almost every game, I have to consider how much this may be coloring things. His attitude this game has been strange enough that I still think he looks worse than most everyone else, though.

Ciato: No strong impression; certainly she hasn't said anything that seems out of place to me.

Excal: I have to second Rat in that he seems to have been hanging about on the sidelines a bit. I have no read whatsoever on Excal. This bothers me, but it doesn't really make him a high priority.

GTAU: I.E., he who shall forever be known as an acronym (it's what comes with picking a long name, dude). Just glad we didn't have a modkill; obviously not enough information to have an opinion on him yet, anyway.

Meeple: Meepleposts are full of Meeple. Somewhat glad to see him branching out from Tom discussion, at least; yes, we need to focus eventually in order to actually manage a lynch, but if Clue mafia was any indicator, Meep can exhibit a dangerous level of monomania when wound up, so it's good to see he's calmed down somewhat and started approaching other issues.

Rat: Inscrutable as always (dammit, stop being so good at this game). He's been very active and his arguments are pretty consistent. Nothing for me to latch onto right now.

Tom: I have to agree with Meeple and Ciato that his response to Rat was downright strange. Calling someone out for...articulately poking holes in your arguments? Just doesn't look good. There's also calling out two people for their lingering GTAU votes when said players hadn't been online since before the modkill announcement, which at the very least demonstrates a worrying lack of attention. I know Tom has since modified what he claims his intent was there, but I'm taking this with a grain of salt. Add in his weirdly bellicose attitude early in the game, and he really doesn't look very good right now. Pretty sure I'd be okay if he was our lynch target today, and vote for him if necessary to make that happen.

EDIT: Alex, you were already after me; it made sense you'd be including me in the posters you were criticizing since I had, in fact, made a post this morning that said "I'll post later." As for me being cranky in my response? Well, yeah. I acknowledged that at the time, and then I moved on. Do you see that attitude in this post? A moment's irritation isn't quite comparable to declaring another poster's entire arguments trash (this is pretty much what Tom's early attacks amounted to), so the hypocrisy card isn't really going to work here.

[Sierra]

Okay. On consideration, I'm backing away from Alex for now. I'm getting too many bad vibes along the lines of Clue mafia, wherein Meeple and I effectively killed each other through mutual tunnel vision. I'd rather not be part of the day one townie slapfight, thanks. If there's even the potential for objectivity to be lost, you need to deal with something else for a while, so:

##Unvote: Sir Alex

Okay, so...I need to go back and reread Excal stuff at some point, but right now I'm comfortable enough going with this:

##Vote: Evil Tom

In spite of my earlier statement that him and Meeple sounded like townies shouting at each other, yes. He looks like the worst of the two and no one else stands out right now.

...Just now realize I left Andy out of my post above, also. Basically okay with him now that he's more active, but I second the general "Wait, what?" reaction to his last couple posts.

[Meeplelard]

El-Cid feels like he actually does the whole "posting in a minute!" thing or whatever you wanna call it in conjunction with actual posts.  El-Cid doesn't just come in, saying "making post!" then disappear...or heck, say that and even post right after.  He tends to say something, THEN say "I am going to look and get more."

The one post he actually did say that alone was a recent one which...feels more like he's saying he read it, but wasn't sure what to write, AND indicating he doesn't have much time to be around either.

No, Alex, its not always true that people have enough time to read + formulate a post full of thoughts; sometimes you only have time for one.  Now, yes, I do agree completely that there's no purpose of "Read stuff, posting thoughts now!" post.  That's a silly place holder that exists to say "Hey I'm not lurking!"...and it looks bad when someone doesn't follow up on it (like Andrew does at the moment.)

Though, yes, you didn't single El-Cid out in this regard, being someone who likes to say "will post more", I can see why he felt it was directed at him.  Though, as I noted, he often puts actual content, and then says more.  Probably just his style of focus on one point at a time, reading over relevant content of that point at once, then deal with it there, rather than your standard Megaposts.  Also, combine that with how you two were generally interacting, and how you have a vote on him, I found his reaction reasonable.  I can see why he felt some sort of implied singling out, even if there wasn't any.  And being one of the three you're referring too, its only natural he responds in that way.
Possible Ciato had a similar train of thought when bringing out El-Cid.

Something tells me, for example, Rat would have responded to Tom's GTAU point regardless of being explicitly mentioned by now or not.  This doesn't seem very different (admittedly, its not exactly the same either.)

Anyway, Alex, I will note that while you are right regarding these things being unhelpful...at the same time, you aren't being very helpful either.  You're doing what Ciato said (chiding over "He didn't post!"), and before then, you called everything meaningless, more or less.  You have a right to think these things, but...I dunno; you aren't doing much at the same time by stating those two things.

At this point, though, Andrew's starting to look worse, if only for the "Going to post something!" and then his entire post being one question aimed at Ciato (a reasonable question I'll grant), and that's it.  Yes, its odd that if Andrew didn't bring up the "working a post" line, he'd look less suspicious, but eh...dunno what to make of it.

After reading over Alex's earlier posts, and taking into account what Rat noted...

##Unvote: SirAlex

While I am still unhappy with his views and his general play style here, I can't find a reason to be suspicious over it anymore.

Given I said before I'm still suspicious of Eviltom...and this will be the third time I do it though (GRANTED! First one was entirely a joke vote), and I want a vote somewhere at this point...

##Vote: Eviltom

Though, as I noted, Andrew's not looking good either.

AND Ninja'd by El-Cid!  God damn it, I need to make posts smaller for the sole reason of being able to get them out faster ;_;

[Excal]

And we're at -2 to Hammer on Tom, with everyone having a vote out except for Guide.

Also, Meeple, reread what Alex said.  He isn't chiding Ciato over that point in and of itself, it's chiding her over doing little more than making that one chiding remark in her post.   Of course, I do disagree with Alex in lumping Ciato in with the others.  She didn't just mention that, but also continues a line in her argument with Meep, giving it more a feel of that being all that she has to say at the moment.

That said, I do generally agree with Alex.  Those posts that say, I'm going to be posting soon are generally chaff.  They make a promise that make people expect something, and encourage them to wait in anticipation that something will be coming.  It's not as though it really helps either, because it's either you keep your word and follow up, in which case you have a neutral gain, or you don't and you look worse for it.  The only time I can see it being a good idea is if there's an imminent hammer, and you want to encourage people to give you time to read and properly formulate your thoughts before the day ends.

I also find this switch from Alex to Dread Thomas by both of the people voting for him to be slightly suspicious.  I mean, it seems a bit risky for both scum to do it, but the difference in time is almost twenty minutes, which disinclines me to be entirely supportive of the mutually independent development idea which Meep tries to claim in his addendum.

[AndrewRogue]

Ciato: Well, the reason I asked is I have been doing the former! I have also attempted to clarify my position on Meeple and Tom several times up to this point. You've been prodding me for what I've been attempting to provide, hence the question. I was curious if there was something specific I seemed to be lacking.

To try and clarify it one last time, my main problem with Meeple is a series of factors. His vote for Tom, the method in which he used said vote to defend himself and the general tone and method of his posting. While it isn't tons, it is enough to make me feel uncomfortable.

Meeple: Fair enough on both counts. I'm really not intending it as a personal attack on your style, and certainly not attempting to clear myself through it. i just can't let it slide either. I am glad you are working on it though. It really is useful!

GTAU: Whee! Yeah. Post more.

Alex and Carth... I'm having serious issues getting reads on either of them.

Excal... your stances on me continue to be really odd. Like, really odd. Your initial commentary on me still stands out as uncharacteristic and weird. Furthermore, you say my movement on Meeple raises all sorts of red flags for being based on "personal attacks"... then proceed to vote Meeple anyway! Presuming you actually felt like I was doing something truly red flag worthy, why would you join me in attacking a given target, when even you aren't too sure about it? It feels off.

In fact. That feels REALLY off.

##Unvote: Meeple
##Vote: Excal

I realize that interaction isn't the only factor you go off of, but why do you still attack Meeple despite me setting off alarms as well?