Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[nkirbit]

Okay, BUT, if the game takes overwhelmingly more effort for town to win, then the balance is off.

The counterpoint to this is... for awhile the complaint was the opposite, because we were playing so much multiball, where scum has a much harder time. In DS9, I worked harder for my scum victory than all my other games put together.

My argument isn't that town needs to "work harder than scum" though, it's that "When a town member puts in any modicum of work, they often get crucified by other townies for "trying too hard, therefore must be scum leading town astray"". Even in M-XXI, where eHal and I really did put in our share of the work to win, there were many people who wanted our heads with accusations of "who made you leader and why should we listen to you?" - And certainly, town NEEDS to question everything they read... But in many, many games that effort and those statements lead to a lynch of the person who is "trying too hard". This was evident in a handful of games following XXI, when eHal and I both got pounded on for actually doing some work

And sure, scum fan the flames of distrust, but they are rarely the driving voices, because if someone is playing a strong town game, but gets lynched anyway, scum doesn't want to be seen as the reason.

My point anyway, isn't that town doesn't need to do more work, it's that "town" needs to do a better job of not penalizing it's own members who do bother to try. (This is especially annoying when it's the lurker town making accusations at the playing town). Scum can still outplay town, sure, but it forces them to play a stronger game.

This is from the "this is where people post when it's night" thread.  Keep this in mind.

My mcmc vote was mainly out of frustration with what I thought was a VT claim, but I stand behind my mail-mi and chairs votes.  You have a player who is saying X and Y are scummy, and you agree that X and Y are scummy, but are spinning that as I'm scummy rather than taking it as face value.  If you agree that Chairs and Mail-Mi were in fact scummy, you're doing exactly what Galzria is cautioning you about.  I just want you to keep this in mind.

It's frustrating for me that I pointed at mail-mi for being scummy, gave good reasons why I believed his scummy, and for the most part, it doesn't seem like anyone has disagreed with my reasons.  Yet I'm still the scummy one here?  Seriously?

Mcmc has made like, four posts all game, and drawn no serious inspection, despite not actively contributing to any scumhunting.

I've put forth views, pointed out actions players have done, explained why I think they're scummy, and yet, I'm still the prime target for the lynch.  I've think I've made only one post which is scummy in and of itself (which Robz has pointed out), yet that was after I already had 3 votes and a fourth player stating they were willing to vote for me.

And you guys really aren't sure why your games are unbalanced towards scum?  You claim to want scumhunting and activity, yet actively punish players who perform such activity.  In Shakespeare, I had a case built against me because I was active, yet did not enough.  In this game, I've had a case built against me because I was active, and voted too much.  The message I'm receiving is "if you want to be not seen as scummy, then don't be too active".  And you wonder why your games are unbalanced when you are sending messages like that.

It's frustrating.

[yuma]

been really busy today, friend came in from phoenix so we have been board gaming it up and hiking and swimming. I'll catch up tomorrow, but I will say to sb that no... sb my case is not just about nk's vote on mcmc. It is about the trend. I'll repeat it again. The trend of voting for what could potentially be easy mislynches... It isn't the individual vote on mcmc, it is the trend.

Someone asked me why I differentiated between robz and nk. Because I didn't notice that robz had a trend. I went back and reread you (and lio because both of you had given me questionable feelings after you joined my mail-mi case) and haven't gone back and reread robz. I will tomorrow and will see if he also has a trend. But I can say that he wasn't on the mail-mi wagon...

But mostly I do feel like there is the potential that scum is doing the opposite of what I was frustrated with voltaire and sb about in "following the yuma." I make a case and pretty quick there are 2-3 people (possibly including scum) saying "yeah! that is scummy!" and joining on pretty quick.

But like I said, I will get back into this tomorrow and address questions more specifically then.

[yuma]

Okay, BUT, if the game takes overwhelmingly more effort for town to win, then the balance is off.

The counterpoint to this is... for awhile the complaint was the opposite, because we were playing so much multiball, where scum has a much harder time. In DS9, I worked harder for my scum victory than all my other games put together.

My argument isn't that town needs to "work harder than scum" though, it's that "When a town member puts in any modicum of work, they often get crucified by other townies for "trying too hard, therefore must be scum leading town astray"". Even in M-XXI, where eHal and I really did put in our share of the work to win, there were many people who wanted our heads with accusations of "who made you leader and why should we listen to you?" - And certainly, town NEEDS to question everything they read... But in many, many games that effort and those statements lead to a lynch of the person who is "trying too hard". This was evident in a handful of games following XXI, when eHal and I both got pounded on for actually doing some work

And sure, scum fan the flames of distrust, but they are rarely the driving voices, because if someone is playing a strong town game, but gets lynched anyway, scum doesn't want to be seen as the reason.

My point anyway, isn't that town doesn't need to do more work, it's that "town" needs to do a better job of not penalizing it's own members who do bother to try. (This is especially annoying when it's the lurker town making accusations at the playing town). Scum can still outplay town, sure, but it forces them to play a stronger game.

This is from the "this is where people post when it's night" thread.  Keep this in mind.

My mcmc vote was mainly out of frustration with what I thought was a VT claim, but I stand behind my mail-mi and chairs votes.  You have a player who is saying X and Y are scummy, and you agree that X and Y are scummy, but are spinning that as I'm scummy rather than taking it as face value.  If you agree that Chairs and Mail-Mi were in fact scummy, you're doing exactly what Galzria is cautioning you about.  I just want you to keep this in mind.

It's frustrating for me that I pointed at mail-mi for being scummy, gave good reasons why I believed his scummy, and for the most part, it doesn't seem like anyone has disagreed with my reasons.  Yet I'm still the scummy one here?  Seriously?

Mcmc has made like, four posts all game, and drawn no serious inspection, despite not actively contributing to any scumhunting.

I've put forth views, pointed out actions players have done, explained why I think they're scummy, and yet, I'm still the prime target for the lynch.  I've think I've made only one post which is scummy in and of itself (which Robz has pointed out), yet that was after I already had 3 votes and a fourth player stating they were willing to vote for me.

And you guys really aren't sure why your games are unbalanced towards scum?  You claim to want scumhunting and activity, yet actively punish players who perform such activity.  In Shakespeare, I had a case built against me because I was active, yet did not enough.  In this game, I've had a case built against me because I was active, and voted too much.  The message I'm receiving is "if you want to be not seen as scummy, then don't be too active".  And you wonder why your games are unbalanced when you are sending messages like that.

It's frustrating.

I get what you are saying here. But there is a flaw to your argument... and it is thus.... in the game that Galz is talking about he and eHal were the major contributors, the major case builders and the pushers of the game. And they did get flak for it, but ultimately didn't get lynched...

Whereas in this game, what I am saying about you isn't that you are one of the major contributors and major case builders and pushers of the game (and thus scummy for it). No what I am saying is that you are not a major case builder, if I can be a little egotistical that would be me, yuma who has been the major case builder... Because in this game I have built up the case on chairs, on mail-mi, on you and started to do so on Robz. Whereas when you have commented it has been afterwards and joining. That is what is suspicious, that you are joining onto wagons (the second in line) almost everytime after I or someone else builds up the case.

Yes you are doing some work yourself... you wrote up some thoughts on both chairs and mail-mi, but again, that was after someone else did so, and just writing up some thoughts isn't enough to not be scummy, because everyone knows that voting w/o reason is scummy... so you as scum, aren't going to just vote for someone for no reason.

My whole point... in the post I quote you are trying to compare yourself to Galz and eHal. But that isn't an apt comparison and as such we can't really take what is being said there and apply it to yourself. If the case was on me, the main pusher and creator of wagons, then I think it would be a different story, but maybe that is just because I am an egoist.

You certainly can apply to points about lurkers and penalizing "trying too hard" but at this point I don't think you are trying to hard. Like I said before you are right where I expect mafia to be... middle of the pack, playing the game, playing decently well, not making waves, not lurking, but certainly not leading. Hence my vote.

[spiritbears]

That's a bit much Yuma.  Surely you can see how that would rub some of us the wrong way?

[yuma]

Yuma:  I don't see why you see a trend in me that you don't see in Robz.  Both Robz and I voted for mcmc, for the exact same reason, one post after the other.

I voted for mail-mi after you had, and Robz voted for myself after you had.

I voted for Chairs after Robz had, but Robz hadn't voted until I had applied some pressure on him and made it clear that I was suspicious of what he was saying.  I guess it's important that Robz voted before I did, but I think you're incorrect in saying that there's a trend for me where there isn't for Robz.  We're both acting in a similar way.

Which makes me suspicious of Robz for finding me suspicious for something he himself is doing.  Hm.

Now to come back to this question. Let's make a timeline so I can get everything straight in my head eh?

So the people in question here are nkiribit and robz in relation to mcmc, chairs and mail-mi.

Mcmc:
Lio - votes for mcmc: but not for the VT claim, but rather for some inconstancies in his post.

NK - votes for mcmc, for the VT claim

Robz - votes for mcmc for the VT claim (notes that he never really thought mcmc was claiming, but wanted reactions)

Point 1 - so in this scenario, nkiribit is second in line voting, but first in line for the reason why, whereas Robz is the second in line for the reason, but third in line for voting.

chairs:

yuma - points out some suspicious behavior by chairs and mail-mi in the same post (I vote mail-mi)

Robz - votes chairs based off his reaction to mcmc claiming VT

spiritbears - votes chairs

nkiribit - semi-defends chairs, and semi-defends mail-mi

nkiribt - finds a slightly scummy post by chairs

nkiribit - now a little more suspicious of chairs, might vote, but the case might be "too easy"

nkiribit - votes chairs (third in line here)

point 2 - in this scenario robz is the first vote, where as nkirbit is the third vote and a kinda slowly easing into voting.

mail-mi:

yuma - makes a case on mail-mi (votes, see above timeline wise)

lio - (after everything is done with chairs) also votes mail-mi

Robz - says my case on mail-mi has some merit, but doens't vote

nkiribit - performs a reread on mail-mi, finds some scummy stuff, doesn't change vote

nkiribit - votes mail-mi

Point 3 - in this scenario, nkirbit is again the third vote and again slowly eases into it

From there the nkiribt case is made by me (again) and it takes off a bit.

So I can see why you might think the comparision between you and robz is there, but I think what I am accusing you of doing is much less pronounced in robz than it is in you (i'll admit it is there) but to a lesser extent.

[Voltaire]

Yuma has me kinda sorta seeing the nkirbit case again. Otherwise, nothing has really changed for me in these past few pages.

[yuma]

That's a bit much Yuma.  Surely you can see how that would rub some of us the wrong way?

absolutely, but that wasn't my intent despite knowing that it might, because I feel that my point is still correct. That the comparison that nkiribt is trying to make isn't a completely accurate one, and from my very biased and egotistical point of view the comparison would be better with me... (people can disagree, and that is fine, but the point wasn't so much to pat myself on the back and say "you are doing such a good job yuma! You are the best!" But to rather show that his argument was flawed and I am just using my own play as an example (again from a very biased perspective).

I certainly don't intend to demean anyone else's play or style or anything. Not everyone plays the same way. That is a good thing. And not everyone has the same amount of time to play (again a good thing). But my play style is to play in such a way that I have a leading voice and that I express my opinions forcefully and loudly... because that is how I enjoy this game and also because I think it is ultimately good for the town that I am a part of (unless I am mafia then it is good for my mafia team)

Ultimately, sorry if I offended

[spiritbears]

Your timeline Yuma is much more helpful. I see both nk and robz as conning off bad from it...I'm reconsidering nk. Robz I still see as opportunistic scum.

[yuma]

Your timeline Yuma is much more helpful. I see both nk and robz as conning off bad from it...I'm reconsidering nk. Robz I still see as opportunistic scum.

Yes I thought it might be helpful to put things into context. I do agree that Robz has some of the traits that I see in nkribit, but I think my belief is that nkirbit is even more so, whereas Robz I think could be considered more... not coincidental, but... I can't think of the word... more circumstantial? (that isn't the word either, but I can't remember what it is... ugh... it has been far too long since my last humanities class...)

[chairs]

Your timeline Yuma is much more helpful. I see both nk and robz as conning off bad from it...I'm reconsidering nk. Robz I still see as opportunistic scum.

Yes I thought it might be helpful to put things into context. I do agree that Robz has some of the traits that I see in nkribit, but I think my belief is that nkirbit is even more so, whereas Robz I think could be considered more... not coincidental, but... I can't think of the word... more circumstantial? (that isn't the word either, but I can't remember what it is... ugh... it has been far too long since my last humanities class...)

circumspect?

Also, yuma, thank you for the post on nkirbit.  You make a very interesting and fairly compelling argument.  I'm not sold on switching my vote, but you've given me something to think about for sure.

[spiritbears]

Yes it is compelling. However i do know timelines can be manipulated to make someone look scummier the. Theyaactually are...so I want to see s reaction from nk before I change anything...

[nkirbit]

I don't have anything new to say.

[nkirbit]

Part of my suspicion on nkirbit is that he IS playing well. He's handling pressure well, not panicking, etc. And I know he's relatively knew but I think he has the makings of a great player. So I'm looking for some decent newbie scum play from him, and I think I may be seeing it.

This is frustrating, though.  Apparently I should been playing scummier, and I wouldn't have been seen as scummy.

[spiritbears]

I don't have anything new to say.

Dang.  I really dislike this...you really just don't seem too I interested in defending  yourself   
vote nk

[Voltaire]

Part of my suspicion on nkirbit is that he IS playing well. He's handling pressure well, not panicking, etc. And I know he's relatively knew but I think he has the makings of a great player. So I'm looking for some decent newbie scum play from him, and I think I may be seeing it.

This is frustrating, though.  Apparently I should been playing scummier, and I wouldn't have been seen as scummy.

I think the problem is that our collective meta of "scummy" and "townie" is wrong.

[nkirbit]

No, I don't.  You all seem to have made your conclusion.  You seem downright convinced that you should be doing something other than lynching scummy players.

i wish you would stop overthinking and just lynch the players who have been scummy D1, but whatever.

[nkirbit]

Part of my suspicion on nkirbit is that he IS playing well. He's handling pressure well, not panicking, etc. And I know he's relatively knew but I think he has the makings of a great player. So I'm looking for some decent newbie scum play from him, and I think I may be seeing it.

This is frustrating, though.  Apparently I should been playing scummier, and I wouldn't have been seen as scummy.

I think the problem is that our collective meta of "scummy" and "townie" is wrong.

Well, all 8 players seem to think I'm scummy, so I can't disagree here.  I actually think all 8 players have said they would be okay lynching me, right?

[Voltaire]

That's L-1, everyone.

[yuma]

No, I don't.  You all seem to have made your conclusion.  You seem downright convinced that you should be doing something other than lynching scummy players.

i wish you would stop overthinking and just lynch the players who have been scummy D1, but whatever.

I admit I have some pretty major reservations. But that is kinda normal for day1. unvote for at least a bit until I get back in about 20 minutes just to stop anything crazy from happening.

[nkirbit]

I'm not going to claim and I'm not going to give you reads.  I'm beyond frustrated that I'm about to be lynched pretty much exclusively because of the fact that I gave too many reads and the wrong times.  Players like mcmc and mail-mi have contributed NOTHING.

In fact, Mail-mi has done nothing, literally every other post of his has been scummy, and no one is looking at him seriously.  Mcmc made one post, got 3 votes for it, and avoided suspicion pretty much by never posting again.

Unless you're a vet like Robz or Yuma, who are "too valuable to lynch Day1", I've been the most active player bringing forth reads, and I'm being lynched for it.  Damn right I'm going to start lurking the next game I sign up for, and it's not going to help town.

[spiritbears]

No, I don't.  You all seem to have made your conclusion.  You seem downright convinced that you should be doing something other than lynching scummy players.

i wish you would stop overthinking and just lynch the players who have been scummy D1, but whatever.

Dude, I ha e been on your side and defended you up to this point...this just isn't fair or right. This reads like resigned caught scum. 

[shraeye]

Vote Count 1.8

mail-mi (1): nkirbit
Robz888 (1): chairs
nkirbit (3): mail-mi, Robz888, spiritbears

Not voting: mcmcsalot, Voltaire, liopoil, yuma

With 9 players alive, it takes 5 to lynch
Deadline is 10:30pm forum time on Wednesday, July 3rd

[spiritbears]

I'm not going to claim and I'm not going to give you reads.  I'm beyond frustrated that I'm about to be lynched pretty much exclusively because of the fact that I gave too many reads and the wrong times.  Players like mcmc and mail-mi have contributed NOTHING.

In fact, Mail-mi has done nothing, literally every other post of his has been scummy, and no one is looking at him seriously.  Mcmc made one post, got 3 votes for it, and avoided suspicion pretty much by never posting again.

Unless you're a vet like Robz or Yuma, who are "too valuable to lynch Day1", I've been the most active player bringing forth reads, and I'm being lynched for it.  Damn right I'm going to start lurking the next game I sign up for, and it's not going to help town.

Now this is more like it.  And yumas unvote just looks bad to me...like he had to be the one conteolling the action.

[Voltaire]

Well, all 8 players seem to think I'm scummy, so I can't disagree here.  I actually think all 8 players have said they would be okay lynching me, right?

Unofficially:

nkirbit (4): mail-mi, yuma, Robz888, spiritbears

I've stated willingness before (though I'm right now backpedaling 100% on an nkirbit lynch based on this recent string of events, this is much too supported to be scum, correct?). That's 5. Then there's:

lio

I see the Nkirbit case and could very well vote for him.

So that's 6.

mcmc

lol but really I like robz case on chairs and yumas case on nk, I'm thinking they are town and are making some good cases.

So that's 7.

chairs

Also, yuma, thank you for the post on nkirbit.  You make a very interesting and fairly compelling argument.  I'm not sold on switching my vote, but you've given me something to think about for sure.

So yeah. 8.

I declare this wagon on a townie. I now am viewing mcmc and nkirbit as town. I return to vote: yuma as my strongest read.

PPE: lots of posts.

[nkirbit]

Here's mail-mi's interactions with me this game.

1. I haven't noticed nkirbit much this game, I'll re-read him.
2. Didn't find anything, but I still find him scummy for lurking
3. I'll vote nkirbit, no new info
(Yuma, robz, Voltaire vote nkirbit for completely unrelated reasons)
4. I like the new reasons on nkirbit, I'll keep my vote there.

Is the fact the he singled out a player for a reread, found nothing, voted him anyway, then sheeped another case on that player just a coincidence?  I don't think so.

I don't understand how there's a player doing stuff like this in the game, and one player (Robz) has looked at it and yeah "wow, yeah, that is scummy" and no one else has acknowledged it.  I know mail-mi comes off scummy even as town guys, but this is sooo scummy.