Mafia CXXXVII: A Shot in the Dark Game Thread Town Victory!

Moderators: Zoomzip, Telleo, bkbkbk, condude1, sjg11

Re: A Shot in the Dark Game Thread (Day 1)

Postby Blackswimmer » 21 Feb 2015, 19:27

Hello and welcome. Don't think I've seen you around before. Any previous experience with mafia? Also, what gender are you? And any objections to being referred to as Micro? Looking forward to playing with you.

Reposting the synopsis of where we're at so far that I made for Al's benefit:
Blackswimmer wrote:Hi Al, good luck catching up.

Current state of the game is that I am currently being lynched, with a case based around me not engaging properly in the discussions about Shirt and his read about SF. Other lynches are Keirador, on a case based around not posting anything of substance and a terrible vote on Anaupr, which he's not discussing much, and Shirt, based on him pushing a weak case on SF.

Ok, reads:
Anaupr
Zilch.

Dodgy56 Alcester
Not a fat lot so far. Hopefully you will be remedying this.

Istott
Zilch.

Ugluk
Early cryptic utterances from Ugluk. Has later explained them and posted one of his famous interaction charts. Suspicious of Keirador on this basis. Remarkably amenable to questioning once he actually started playing. And started me looking at Keir, which is good. Townread for me.

Izzmund
Not a fat lot, really. Has been here, and posting, but I can't honestly think of anything particularly striking he's posted. On the other hand, he has been questioning a lot. Null read.

Sjg11
Not nearly as active or influential as I'd expect. Similar to Izz, in my mind. I could do with rereading Sjg to get a better feel for him. Currently null.

Dwiltseredu
Active, asking stuff. Slightly offbeam at times, but seems to be making an effort. Slight townread.

Shirt
Has been talking about nothing but SF all day. His case on her is, IMO, flawed, but I can see where he's coming from. Consistent with somewhat intransigent play of townShirt in the past.

Shadowfriend1
I got off to a rocky start with SF. Issues with me misunderstanding one of her first posts, since cleared up. Further issues with her ignoring questions from me over content of some of her posts, as well as poor interactions with Shirt. My questions to her have since been cleared up. Her interaction with Shirt seems plausible as a new player getting frustrated. Keen on pushing her own case on Shirt, rather than joining the easy lynch on me, which is a point in her favour. Probably slight townlean at this point.

Keirador
Top scumread as of this moment. Has basically only been talking about inconsequentialities. Terrible vote on Anaupr, refuses to talk to me about it. Currently ragequit over people's inactivity, I think.

Crunkus
Very active, on just about everything, as you'd expect. Main driving force behind the case on me. Currently slight townlean, due to inaccuracy of some points raised against me. Yes Crunkus, I said some, not all. While this may seem a slightly weird reason for a townread, I believe Crunkus as scum could find enough to drive my lynch without resorting to spurious points. Therefore this seems a genuine push on me, rather than tactical play.

Harb
Good engagement, questioning on a number of areas. Looks like townHarb to me. ScumHarb tends to be more hands-off.

So there you have it. Worrying quantities of town and null reads in there, I know. We're definitely suffering from inactivity.
Ugluk wrote:Blackswimmer: Sinking in the deep end.

I'll be back
User avatar
Blackswimmer
 
Posts: 2591
Joined: 08 Jan 2013, 12:32
Location: Wales
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT

Re: A Shot in the Dark Game Thread (Day 1)

Postby shadowface » 21 Feb 2015, 19:28

Alcester wrote:Alright, I'm here and trying to catch up. I can verify that I have read and understand the rules.

@EVERYONE Give me a quick rundown on the game up to this point from your vantage point. Top reads with explanations would be appreciated. I am currently on page 7 and will be reading as I am able.

Welcome! Good luck catching up.
Top reads are Keirador and Shirt right now. My shirt case is a bit old, but if is premised on the fact that I thought he was playing dumb with his poorly constructed case on me earlier this game. I thought the case was insincere and focused too much on his misinterpretation of my first post. I also felt he was unwilling to understand my further posts and the answers to the questions he asked me.
My read on Keirador is based mostly on his recent play, which involves his declaration that he will no longer post because we are missing a couple of players. I consider this an easy excuse for scum, especially the aspirant, to not post and potentially get lynched. What's more, he's obviously not going to help the town at all, so there's no point having him around. Worst case, it would be like lynching a lurker. I do think that his recent behavior is horrible town play, which is why I can't see town doing it.
~sf1 8-)
The player formerly known as shadowfriend1
Proud bearer of the Angle of Unnecessary Overshoot
Previously cursed by the Talisman of Greater Scumminess :twisted:, now an innocent, reformed townsperson
User avatar
shadowface
 
Posts: 5524
Joined: 06 Feb 2013, 06:26
Location: Toronto
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (892)
All-game rating: (892)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: A Shot in the Dark Game Thread (Day 1)

Postby Izzmund » 21 Feb 2015, 19:29

shadowfriend1 wrote:Izzmund: Why are you so interested in my read on BS? You could answer all of these questions if you just look at what I've been saying all day. I feel like you are trying to set me up to look like a buddy of BS here. You're targeting me because I'm not totally sold on his lynch, and I don't think this is fair. I've told you my read on him. I just don't feel so strongly about his lynch that I'm getting tunnel visioned and attributing everything he said to being mafia. This is just an honest perspective. Talk to someone like sjg if you want a speech on how evil BS is. I've told you my perspective too many times, all day long.


Should I not be interested in how you are reading someone I think is mafia? Maybe I am wrong and you can show me how I am wrong? Or maybe I am right and I am curious as to why you are wrong. I am not trying to "set you up" as a buddy to BS, I think it is a distinct possibility (and said so). So why wouldn't I question you? Why is it "unfair" to ask questions about a read that you posted? Also I notice that you did not respond to the fact that you are voting Keir for doing the exact opposite of what you expect mafia to be doing in the current game state. Why is that again?
User avatar
Izzmund
 
Posts: 1467
Joined: 21 Jun 2014, 02:57
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1241)
All-game rating: (1259)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: A Shot in the Dark Game Thread (Day 1)

Postby Micro98 » 21 Feb 2015, 19:29

Backswimmer wrote:Look, if I get lynched, at least this way tomorrow there's something to go on - I am suspicious of Keir, and the reasons for that are inthread. Telling someone to vote themselves is dumb, and you know it.


Of all the examples you could have used why did this one stick out? I haven't caught up to know what this case on Keirador is so this sticks out to me because I feel like if you're going to mention one aspect of a case in passing it's going to be your strongest point against someone but telling someone to vote themselves doesn't scream scum tell to me, am I missing something?

PPE: white, male, not close enough to six foot for my liking.
Micro98
 
Posts: 98
Joined: 20 Feb 2015, 01:31
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (924)
All-game rating: (925)
Timezone: GMT

Re: A Shot in the Dark Game Thread (Day 1)

Postby Crunkus_old » 21 Feb 2015, 19:30

Blackswimmer wrote:=
I care. I really do. But I can't fix mistakes I've made. I should have engaged better about Shirt.


You should be engaging better right now too... You're choosing not to. Again.

Blackswimmer wrote:My reasons for doing so, I have stated time and again. They are not, now I consider it, very good reasons. But there's nothing I can do about that. I can't change the past, I can't make good reasons for actions that were made for poor reasons.


You can help me simply understand what the truth is. Instead of constantly saying...they aren't good reasons, I should have done it, while at times simultaneously maintaining you had no idea why I was voting for you.


Blackswimmer wrote:
Crunkus wrote: This IS the game...whether you are lynched or not right now.

Correct. Which is why I'm trying to spend my time pushing a case that I consider solid. Because at this point that's all that's going to save me - finding someone with even bigger issues to lynch.


Blackswimmer, what if the case you are pushing right now simply looks and you and says...you're right. I shouldn't have done whatever it is you consider odd. I have no good explanation. Then for all intents and purposes ignores you and begins posting on other things, including how other people aren't playing the game properly? Would you consider that reasonable behaviour? You called me stuck in confirmation bias before. Now you claim I am anything from unreasonable and you seem to assert you yourself understand how bad you look. When did that change? That's another change in your thinking of this subject I have no real understanding of. Your positions keep changing, but there's no attempt to connect the dots between them. When asked, you say you can't. You don't even try.

Blackswimmer wrote:I don't feel the vote against me is unreasonable. That's the issue. I thought some of the points raised against me earlier by you were unreasonable. But the main thrust of the case is not unreasonable. Which puts me in a hole. If the case was unreasonable I'd be busy tearing it to shreds. But I can't because what you say is correct. I should have engaged with Shirt, but I didn't.
I don't have any other reasons for thinking you're not scum. You're a good scum player and hard to catch. I have a slight townlean on you, and thought that worth putting out there.


Explain the evolution in this thinking then. This has not been your position from the get go...much the opposite.

So you recognize here you UNDERSTOOD the main thrust, and when you were micro replying to points you knew not to be the main thrust of the argument, you were doing what exactly?

There's more to it than that moment Blackswimmer. You've been playing dumb about even understanding the main thrust of the argument. For quite a while your approach was focus on the less than salient things I've said and ignore the main thrust of the argument even lament my not having one.

That's an issue for me. I want to understand that too. You've had all the time in the world to engage with me on this lynch. You've been busy doing other things sir. You have 24 hours. Now you are using them telling me why you don't have time for this, in detail.


Blackswimmer wrote:
Crunkus wrote: Blackswimmer, why do you bother pretending that you are doing anything more than an in this game?

That is unfair and you know it.


Nope. It's entirely fair. You are ignoring the lynching of the only player you know to be town when all you have to do is detail the truth of the situation. You've had extended time to do so. You've blamed me for being stuck in confirmation bias, then decided that isn't the case. All without an explanation of how you get from point A to point B.

Blackswimmer wrote:
Crunkus wrote: You aren't willing to talk about your own lynch?

I've spent literally hours talking about it. I can't think of anything more to say.


Then you're done. You've spent no time engaging. You've spent time answering and telling me you've answered. You've spent time saying you don't get the main thrust and replying only to other details, and then saying the main thrust is reasonable and understandable and you can't even offer the poor reasons you had for focusing on Ugluk's pen colours.

Go outside, have a catch...stop criticising others for not playing the game properly. You are being asked to simply tell the truth about what happened. To make yourself understood. To explain how you went from Crunkus the confirmation bias stuck guy focusing on poor details, to Crunkus understandably questioning one thing you cannot explain (it's not one thing) and will not attempt to.

You could be asking me what you could do. Then doing it.

You have posted repeatedly alright. Repeatedly saying there is nothing you can do...you keep changing the reasons why there is nothing you can do.

Blackswimmer wrote:
Crunkus wrote:The people voting for you? They ARE here. We CAN be talked to. All you have to do is tell the truth, figure out what is bothering us, and address it directly.

I've told the truth. I know what's bothering you. What I can't do is figure out how to address it and more directly than I have done.


You have not explained that incident. You have said you should have done it differently and you had no good reason for doing it how you did.

This is not telling the truth of the details of how it happened.

Blackswimmer wrote:
Crunkus wrote: Offering an answer, shrugging your shoulders, and saying, I can't do it...is lame.

I'm not saying I can't do it. I'm saying I've done it. It's all out there, you think I'm lying... yeah.


So maybe you think I just haven't seen what you consider to be what I'm asking for.

Why are you wasting your time telling me this? Why aren't you trying to bring it to my attention?

Or is this addressing someone else other than me? Are you talking to me right now or other people?

Blackswimmer wrote:
Crunkus wrote: Vote for yourself if that's all you have in you.

Look, if I get lynched, at least this way tomorrow there's something to go on - I am suspicious of Keir, and the reasons for that are inthread. Telling someone to vote themselves is dumb, and you know it.


Then vote for yourself. You've given up. Why are you lecturing others like Kier for giving up on the game? You've given up on the game too.

Blackswimmer wrote:
Crunkus wrote:But stop wasting your time saying other people aren't doing anything of use. You can't even be bothered to engage with people you feel are reasonable, but you can't be bothered to reason with.

I have never said people aren't doing anything of use. Other than the ones who, y'know, really aren't. I've spent hours trying to explain my positions to you. Don't accuse me of not engaging.


I accuse you of not engaging. You are currently accusing me of being unreasonable. You just got done saying that was incorrect. If you've already done what I'm asking for...bring it to my attention.

Better yet, simply take 10-15 minutes and recount exactly what happened...stupid things and all...as it happened. To go back and read what you wrote...just talk. Be real. What was going on?

You've made no attempt to do this that I'm aware of. You've said you had no good reason and agree you should have been talking about things you didn't talk about.

You've not addressed why you said I had no reason for voting for you that you were aware of, while simultaneously arguing on the "non-main thrust" points that I had mentioned against you.

You have not explained your evolution in attitude about the charges against you.

I keep explicitly telling you what would help me not lynch you. You keep telling me you already have, then not showing me where, you keep telling me you can't, you keep telling me I am unreasonable and I am reasonable.

You don't tell me why you think it's unlikely that I'm scum railroading you.

You could engage in these things, you could go back and quote what I'm forgetting that you really think should be sufficient.

You just shrug. Tell me how I'm supposed to see that as anything other than a dodge directed at other people besides my self. That's a new question...explain that to me.

Blackswimmer wrote:
Crunkus wrote: I mean its worse than people not showing up at all.

Unless you're just being a lazy scum waiting for something else to take off or us to get pissed at someone who is not here.

You know, I am this close to just doing a Keir at this point and just walking away. I'm not going to, but I am annoyed. I haven't played particularly brilliantly, I know. But this is just insulting.


It's not insulting. You're the one telling other people they aren't playing properly or participating properly.

I'm showing that you are in one of the most important roles in the game right now, the guy who is probably going to be lynched day one, you know you're town, and you have typed more about why you can't do anything about it than you have actually doing anything about it. You say you should have done more earlier, but what have you learned from it? Nothing. You have the chance now...you type a big long message and about how I am insulting you and you've already done everything I asked.

That's sincere engagement?

You said I was reasonable, and that I could be approached. If you feel I missed something important, draw it to my attention. You don't want to. You want to spend that time typing big long posts about me.
(sigh)
Crunkus_old
 
Posts: 17650
Joined: 05 Feb 2009, 23:51
Class: Star Ambassador
All-game rating: (944)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: A Shot in the Dark Game Thread (Day 1)

Postby Crunkus_old » 21 Feb 2015, 19:36

Blackswimmer wrote:
Blackswimmer wrote: I made clear that I'd changed, and why. I made clear (I believe) that I thought that the original position was valid, but that it no longer was. My mistake was probably in not being vocal enough in relating this to Shirt. On the other side of the coin, I didn't want to come over as supporting Shirt's continuing position vis-à-vis the scumhunting thing. Plus which, I wasn't sure on SF, and wanted to get a response from her to my questions to solidify my read on her.

Long story short: I didn't get involved as I should have because a) I wasn't too sure where I was on SF, and b) I thought I'd made my position on the bit I was sure on (the scumhunting thing) clear.


So you posted about pen colours?

I don't get how you thought posting on the subject and involving yourself in that conversation was going to be seen as you supporting shirt's continuing position in a way you were not in control of.

Were you reading this thinking, I have something to say here...but if I say it...people will think I'm supporting shirt's continuing position?

I mean, if what you were going to say wasn't supporting shirt's continuing position, how did you think...no I won't do that because people will think I am supporting shirt's position.

So you instead talk about pen colours.

This is an excuse for not doing something. It's not a coherent explanation of how it happened. I don't get how you stop yourself from posting because you don't want to be seen supporting something. Post something that makes that clear.

You are saying essentially you had a lot to say...but you felt powerless to make yourself clear so you posted a post instead about ugluk's pen colours.

That's not an explanation. It's an excuse that doesn't make any sense.
(sigh)
Crunkus_old
 
Posts: 17650
Joined: 05 Feb 2009, 23:51
Class: Star Ambassador
All-game rating: (944)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: A Shot in the Dark Game Thread (Day 1)

Postby Crunkus_old » 21 Feb 2015, 19:36

I mean Kier, disagrees. I'd like him to chip in and explain how it made sense to him.
(sigh)
Crunkus_old
 
Posts: 17650
Joined: 05 Feb 2009, 23:51
Class: Star Ambassador
All-game rating: (944)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: A Shot in the Dark Game Thread (Day 1)

Postby Crunkus_old » 21 Feb 2015, 19:38

Blackswimmer wrote:See, I consider myself to have a responsibility to the other people who are actually bothering to play. So I intend to continue playing until I'm killed or the GM calls time.


You have a responsibility to the other people who are actually playing to make no attempt to change their mind as to your alignment before they kill you.

Me pointing that out as your position, is insulting, correct?

That's you sincere position.
(sigh)
Crunkus_old
 
Posts: 17650
Joined: 05 Feb 2009, 23:51
Class: Star Ambassador
All-game rating: (944)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: A Shot in the Dark Game Thread (Day 1)

Postby Blackswimmer » 21 Feb 2015, 19:39

Micro98 wrote:
Backswimmer wrote:Look, if I get lynched, at least this way tomorrow there's something to go on - I am suspicious of Keir, and the reasons for that are inthread. Telling someone to vote themselves is dumb, and you know it.


Of all the examples you could have used why did this one stick out? I haven't caught up to know what this case on Keirador is so this sticks out to me because I feel like if you're going to mention one aspect of a case in passing it's going to be your strongest point against someone but telling someone to vote themselves doesn't scream scum tell to me, am I missing something?

PPE: white, male, not close enough to six foot for my liking.

You're missing a lot of context on this.

Crunkus is telling me I should just give up and selfvote. I said I'd rather do useful stuff, like my case on Keir, so if I die at least that's out there for people to look at. Keir has not told me to selfvote.
Ugluk wrote:Blackswimmer: Sinking in the deep end.

I'll be back
User avatar
Blackswimmer
 
Posts: 2591
Joined: 08 Jan 2013, 12:32
Location: Wales
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT

Re: A Shot in the Dark Game Thread (Day 1)

Postby Micro98 » 21 Feb 2015, 19:40

Blackswimmer wrote:
Micro98 wrote:
Backswimmer wrote:Look, if I get lynched, at least this way tomorrow there's something to go on - I am suspicious of Keir, and the reasons for that are inthread. Telling someone to vote themselves is dumb, and you know it.


Of all the examples you could have used why did this one stick out? I haven't caught up to know what this case on Keirador is so this sticks out to me because I feel like if you're going to mention one aspect of a case in passing it's going to be your strongest point against someone but telling someone to vote themselves doesn't scream scum tell to me, am I missing something?

PPE: white, male, not close enough to six foot for my liking.

You're missing a lot of context on this.

Crunkus is telling me I should just give up and selfvote. I said I'd rather do useful stuff, like my case on Keir, so if I die at least that's out there for people to look at. Keir has not told me to selfvote.


Right - that makes more sense, I'll have a look for that context now then.
Micro98
 
Posts: 98
Joined: 20 Feb 2015, 01:31
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (924)
All-game rating: (925)
Timezone: GMT

PreviousNext

Return to Game Threads

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests