Print

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

[shraeye]

ehunt, i totally dont understand how what i i did can be inferred as scummy.maybe i used a bad wording? (seriously i don't understand). i don't think it's particularly relevant though, maybe we've been on this sidetrack long enough. what i tried to do was to offer my opinion on what insomniac's comment to abra meant.

i think the ambiguous, possibly erroneous, referencing of previous fights, is a little bit more likely from mafia than from town. it seemed possible at the time you posted that you were confused about the roles played by everyone in a fight that you were pretending to referee. if you were actually refereeing the fight, you would be less likely to be confused than if you were pretending to referee it, especially if it happened to be the case that everyone involved in the fight was town and you were mafia. (on the flip side if you were mafia and you knew that one person in the big kerfuffle was mafia and the rest town, there's NO WAY you would word things confusingly, because you would be hyper-involved to referee. so my conspiracy theory only works if abra-insom-arch are town and you're scum, which is why i'm not elevating it anywhere near the level of a voting issue)

Just reread this. Does this read scummy to anyone else? I think that ehunt is talking about a hypothetically staged fight between these 3 and I don't know a what seems to be just a casual discussion with the new player, ehunt is trying to build a huge case out of it. This seems like precisely what eevee was outlining as a good plan for mafia: to take a possible scenario that looks bad surrounding the new player and trying to paint somebody as scum for it. I don't want to say that it's too early to build cases but this seems like and incredibly opportunistic case to jump on.

Vote: ehunt

Ugh.  Just, ugh.  I want some real discussion to come up, not this "abra said weird stuff, insom pointed it out, archetype reacted too strongly to Insomniac's reaction, ehunt gets all excited at Arch's reaction to a reaction, AND NOW Munch thinks ehunt's reaction to a reaction about a reaction is incredibly opportunistic and scummy" crap. 

Sure, now possibly Munch is acting weird with his vote then quick-unvote stuff.  But maybe he just realized that he was so far down the rabbit hole that he was trying to make sense of garbledeewollap.
But this is just too many layers of reaction to make any sort of correct assessment.  You try to puzzle through the what-ifs of the alignment of every involved player and it's just stupid.  If anybody has a "solid read" from any of these arguments, then they are just plain wrong.

Man, I'm glad I'm not the first person to mention this

It's too confusing for me to find it scummy, frankly.

This is exactly what I mean by above.

This is just Munch being Munch right now regardless of his alignment, in my opinion.  Archetype's case on Insom is classic Archetype, whether it's a good or bad case.  And I don't feel I know ehunt's style as closely, but this looks like classic ehunt as well.  Hilarious.

[Archetype]

I generally dont like getting in conflicts with others, yes. But since you guys call me scum for not voting (even after I explained why) I'll Vote: Robz

[Robz888]

Archetype, your main motivation shouldn't be to please people. If you are town, almost one fourth of others are scum to you. Do you want to play in a way that makes you avoid conflicts with them?

Bingo.

[Robz888]

I'd put a vote down now, but I don't want ehunt/Cuzz to jump on me for voting through a weak case.

Hedging. The scummy kind.

[shraeye]

I'd put a vote down now, but I don't want ehunt/Cuzz to jump on me for voting through a weak case.

Hedging. The scummy kind.

You'll have to explain how that reads as hedging to you, I don't get it.  What are the two positions he's avoiding choosing between?

[Eevee]

I 100% agree with shraeye's long post on the top of this page.

[Robz888]

I'd put a vote down now, but I don't want ehunt/Cuzz to jump on me for voting through a weak case.

Hedging. The scummy kind.

You'll have to explain how that reads as hedging to you, I don't get it.  What are the two positions he's avoiding choosing between?

He says that he believes he has made a case so strong it is worthy of a vote, but backtracks on this position because he is afraid of appearances. He is hedging his position. To scum, this may feel natural, "I will present a strong case, but I will qualify it with some other concern so I don't end up pushing it too aggressively. This way, I hedge my bets."

[shraeye]

Actually thats a terrible meta to have.  Unvote.

i like it that i earned your trust by... causing you to think about your meta...
munch, are you unvoting just out of self-doubt about your meta or do i seem less scummy?

shraeye, is this scummunch or just munch being munch? what about my earlier question to you that's now superburied? (i'm actually a little nostalgic for hours ago when it was unclear whether rvs was over or not.)

everyone besides robz: feelings on archetype?

Ii think I answered the bit about Munch, right?  He's really bad at ultra-tunnelling in when he sees something suspicious to him, and hopefully he's realized that it's far too early in this game to be 'confident' about any suspicions that one has built.

As for me, I don't understand why your question was a question.  How could my fifth post of the game contain any sort of non-RVS read?

[cayvie]

Ii think I answered the bit about Munch, right?  He's really bad at ultra-tunnelling in when he sees something suspicious to him, and hopefully he's realized that it's far too early in this game to be 'confident' about any suspicions that one has built.

As for me, I don't understand why your question was a question.  How could my fifth post of the game contain any sort of non-RVS read?

easily

[cayvie]

Sigh. ehunt, I don't think you really need to defend yourself here. There's no wagon against you, just TheMunch.

but he's voting for me!!

haha yeah here's a scene i see play out a lot

player A attacks player B
player B defends
player C is like, why are you being so defensive? there's only one person attacking you

(not that i think robz is doing that here, just that i get your situation)

[shraeye]

I'd put a vote down now, but I don't want ehunt/Cuzz to jump on me for voting through a weak case.

Hedging. The scummy kind.

You'll have to explain how that reads as hedging to you, I don't get it.  What are the two positions he's avoiding choosing between?

He says that he believes he has made a case so strong it is worthy of a vote, but backtracks on this position because he is afraid of appearances. He is hedging his position. To scum, this may feel natural, "I will present a strong case, but I will qualify it with some other concern so I don't end up pushing it too aggressively. This way, I hedge my bets."

Ok, I see that I missed the context that you quoted from.  Now I've gone back and reread this, and I'm still not sure of this hedging.  Archetype calls ehunt "awfully scummy in my eyes" and then says he's "leaning towards a vote on ehunt".

I'm somebody who (as Dsell has pointed out before, in RMM3 and MXIII i think) makes very confident statements based on hunches, basically overstating things.  Munch does the same, and I think Archetype does somewhat as well.  Archetype's post reads to me like he thought ehunt's posts had been very scummy, but because he had so few concrete actions to go on, he was only leaning towards a vote instead of jumping out of his seat to vote.  At the end of that post (what you originally quoted), Archetype doesn't vote as he was jumped on for his earlier vote on Insom. 

I don't see the hedging.  BUT what I do see is a player who is very concerned with who is suspicious of him, and who is arguing with him.  He's changing his actions to appease the people that are voting for him, AND at the same time, saying that one of them (ehunt) is scum.

Well, I never change what I'm doing at scum's request, and I very rarely change it for town's request as well.  Archetype too, in his first few games (RMM3, ZM3) would keep doing his thing even as people were attacking him.  The last time I recall Archetype doing things to appease others, was when he was mafia in ZM5, and I (a VT) demanded that he post or I'd vote for him.  He posted immediately and left me with a huge scumread which was correct.

In conclusion, I am suspicious of Archetype and would love for Frisk (his scummate from ZM5) to get in here and comment on Archetype's play thus far.

[cayvie]

I generally dont like getting in conflicts with others, yes. But since you guys call me scum for not voting (even after I explained why) I'll Vote: Robz

haha archetype you have such a spazzy meta

normally i'd vote a player over a post like this, but not you

while i'm making meta-arguments, i'm going to vote: eevee though, for this:

Archetype, your main motivation shouldn't be to please people. If you are town, almost one fourth of others are scum to you. Do you want to play in a way that makes you avoid conflicts with them?

[Captain_Frisk]

I generally dont like getting in conflicts with others, yes. But since you guys call me scum for not voting (even after I explained why) I'll Vote: Robz

haha archetype you have such a spazzy meta

normally i'd vote a player over a post like this, but not you

while i'm making meta-arguments, i'm going to vote: eevee though, for this:

Archetype, your main motivation shouldn't be to please people. If you are town, almost one fourth of others are scum to you. Do you want to play in a way that makes you avoid conflicts with them?

Because Eevee Ike's to buddy?

[Eevee]

yeah cayvie, why? again, i really dont see it.

[ashersky]

yeah cayvie, why? again, i really dont see it.

Stop buddying up to Cayvie!

[Eevee]

yeah cayvie, why? again, i really dont see it.

Stop buddying up to Cayvie!

lol.

[cayvie]

yeah cayvie, why? again, i really dont see it.

...because you're usually super friendly and get called out on it...

you talk about this all the time...

[Eevee]

I think it's a whole different thing to generally be friendly and to let other people's wishes affect your voting behavior and such. I like to think I go after people hard enough if I think they are scummy. I think the I have meta mostly comes from me often getting town reads on stuff people say and generally defending other people against accusations (as a townie at least, I don't really have a scum meta).

[ehunt]

I'm applying for jobs today so will be V/LA although I probably won't be able to resist checking back in every two seconds.

I agree with the general philosophy that you should be a nice person (so that the game doesn't become miserable) but that you shouldn't "make friends." There is some needle to thread there.

[Voltgloss]

I'd put a vote down now, but I don't want ehunt/Cuzz to jump on me for voting through a weak case.

Hedging. The scummy kind.

You'll have to explain how that reads as hedging to you, I don't get it.  What are the two positions he's avoiding choosing between?

He says that he believes he has made a case so strong it is worthy of a vote, but backtracks on this position because he is afraid of appearances. He is hedging his position. To scum, this may feel natural, "I will present a strong case, but I will qualify it with some other concern so I don't end up pushing it too aggressively. This way, I hedge my bets."

This argument worries me.  But not about Archetype.  It worries me about Robz.

Why?  Because, in my experience, town!Robz is generally pretty adamant that "hedging" is NOT a scumtell.  Robz arguing that someone is scummy for hedging - especially this early in the game, and against someone that multiple others have already found suspicious for other reasons - has me concerned that this is scum!Robz trying to drum up support for a mislynch with a reasonable argument.

And yes, I said "reasonable argument."  Because I don't agree with Robz about hedging - I do consider it to be scummy, especially when both sides of a hedge are presented in the same post (rendering the post an effective nullity) - and so I see the merit to the argument that this is what Archetype is doing. 

But it's not an argument that I would expect to see from town!Robz.  I would expect it more from scum!Robz who knows that the argument will resonate with townies in the game (like, for instance, me).

Vote: Robz888

[TheMunch]

Hedging. The scummy kind.

I'm not an expert on Robz's playstyle or opinions on game theory, but he did say "the scummy kind".  Is this a distinction he has made in the past?

[shraeye]

I'm applying for jobs today so will be V/LA although I probably won't be able to resist checking back in every two seconds.

I agree with the general philosophy that you should be a nice person (so that the game doesn't become miserable) but that you shouldn't "make friends." There is some needle to thread there.

I am the worst at threading that needle 

But I do often defend things I find defensible, also when they're attacks levelled at others instead of myself.

[Captain_Frisk]

I will also Vote: Robz for picking on Archetype.

ZM5 isn't a fair comparison, as we didn't need to do alot of theory stuff, but Archetype's post to me screams "not great at theory", not "scummy play".

[jotheonah]

We seem to be picking sides here, Robz vs. archetype. The most compelling thing on the Archetype side to me is Shraeye's argument here:

I don't see the hedging.  BUT what I do see is a player who is very concerned with who is suspicious of him, and who is arguing with him.  He's changing his actions to appease the people that are voting for him, AND at the same time, saying that one of them (ehunt) is scum.

Well, I never change what I'm doing at scum's request, and I very rarely change it for town's request as well.  Archetype too, in his first few games (RMM3, ZM3) would keep doing his thing even as people were attacking him.  The last time I recall Archetype doing things to appease others, was when he was mafia in ZM5, and I (a VT) demanded that he post or I'd vote for him.  He posted immediately and left me with a huge scumread which was correct.

In conclusion, I am suspicious of Archetype and would love for Frisk (his scummate from ZM5) to get in here and comment on Archetype's play thus far.

I'm really bad at remembering peoples' metas, but this rings true to me. Can someone else weigh in on whether shraeye's assessment is fair/accurate?

[TheMunch]

We seem to be picking sides here, Robz vs. archetype. The most compelling thing on the Archetype side to me is Shraeye's argument here:

I don't see the hedging.  BUT what I do see is a player who is very concerned with who is suspicious of him, and who is arguing with him.  He's changing his actions to appease the people that are voting for him, AND at the same time, saying that one of them (ehunt) is scum.

Well, I never change what I'm doing at scum's request, and I very rarely change it for town's request as well.  Archetype too, in his first few games (RMM3, ZM3) would keep doing his thing even as people were attacking him.  The last time I recall Archetype doing things to appease others, was when he was mafia in ZM5, and I (a VT) demanded that he post or I'd vote for him.  He posted immediately and left me with a huge scumread which was correct.

In conclusion, I am suspicious of Archetype and would love for Frisk (his scummate from ZM5) to get in here and comment on Archetype's play thus far.

I'm really bad at remembering peoples' metas, but this rings true to me. Can someone else weigh in on whether shraeye's assessment is fair/accurate?

So the two cases:

Robz - despite having been against hedging as a scumtell in the past, he calls out Archetype for hedging.  The conclusion drawn by Volt is that Robz viewpoint has changed in order to take advantage of a hedging archetype for an easy mislynch.
Archetype - Accused of appeasing the masses, a trait that he shared when he was scum in ZM5.  The conclusion drawn by Shraeye is that this is particularly damning because he is even willing to appease the players that he has "scum" reads on.

I dont see this as a Robz vs Archetype problem.  I could see both Arch and Robz being scum in this scenario.  Archetype plays like he does as scum and appeases even his fake reads.  Robz calls out his scum buddy with an argument that he may think wont go through.

But I'm trying to think if these cases are actually damning; whether or not town could do these things as well.  I feel like Robz would have no reason to change his opinions on whether or not hedging was scummy unless he had an ulterior motive.  And Archetype would have no reason to appease a scum read unless it was fake.  I could only see Archetype doing this kind of hedging if he just wasn't sure of his reads and didn't want to fall under undeserved suspicion. 

They very well might both be scum but I think that is way too convenient.  I think the player with the least plausible deniability is Robz so I will Vote: Robz