Aperture Mafia 2: Portal Edition

On October 01 2012 01:09 austinmcc wrote:

The good start bit is relative to other recent games. It may seem dead, but, comparatively, this game started much quicker.

So you don't see Keirathi's early play as scummy, you find it poorly executed town play.

I didn't find it scummy and asked Drazerk whether he actually does, which was not a rhetorical question (The other ones, sure, but the final question to Drazerk is for realsies). You even want "more explanation" from Drazerk in the future, which is what I wanted because I didn't see Keirathi's entrance as third party. I know that Drazerk gave some comments on why an uninvested survivor would give up so easily, but look at his actual vote:The vote lays out survivor/third party/idiot. What makes Drazerk sure it's the first two and not the third? I'm wondering why, if it can be any of the three, he's so focused on the third party options. Maybe I'm just paranoid, but Drazerk and third party have a history in themed games, and want to know why he's zoning in on third party options rather than what would appear to be bad townie.

It's not that I can't see what Drazerk is saying, but I want to know where that option for Keirathi's play went.

On October 01 2012 03:18 austinmcc wrote:
Keirathi, I'm a little troubled by this when I look back through your explanation:

When you unvote, you specifically note that you want real, meaningful opinions that people can be held accountable for. So you're interested in getting discussion going in general.

This seems to not match up. If you wanted people to give opinions, how was your goal accomplished when only Mattchew responded?



Now you seem to be responding to Drazerk that you were only concerned with Mattchew and not other people's opinions. The initial justification says you wanted opinions, now you don't even want them.


Back to wanting discussion.


Why the two inconsistent explanations? You may think this has been covered ad nauseum, but some of your explanations aren't really matching up.

On October 02 2012 00:31 austinmcc wrote:
Alright, done some rereading. My number 1 concern at this point is the number of side squabbles and useless votes that we've got. Previous votecount had 6 people with votes, and I think we're still about as spread out as we were before. Stuff like:

Drazerk/snb very interested in each other. Both voting each other, in part, based on what seems to be "He should understand my play better." I don't want to lynch either of them today, and telling me that some other player should understand you better doesn't make me want to lynch that other guy. The votes feel entirely wasted.

ghost's vote is wasted. Votes keirathi for trying too hard, never engages anyone else who's talking about keirathi.

nisani201 still has a vote on Drazerk for Drazerk's initial response to Keirathi. Followed by very little else and

Can't single people out for not contributing, but those votes look like they've been made without any attempt to convince anyone else, and they don't feel like they're serving a purpose.

---

JH, how is PTP3 pushing you to play this way?

Why exactly do you find that performance embarrassing, and how is it driving you to play the way you are this game? Is it just the constant pushing of Grush and trying to get people on that lynch?

On October 02 2012 00:58 austinmcc wrote:

Those jumps are based on what you did in the meantime. Here's my initial post:

I didn't see your unvote for weak reasons as scummy. Drazerk had just posted that it was third party or idiot, I didn't find it to be telling at all because the reasoning behind the vote in the first place didn't seem strong.

Then after that post, you give your explanation and justification. THAT is what I feel is scummy, reminds me of scum. I'm not concerned about you unvoting based on some weak comments from matt (What drazerk mentioned and what I didn't find scummy), I'm concerned about you based on your later explanation where you claim to have wanted discussion and opinions yet unvote before any of that ever appears.


Right now, I'm scummy on you. I'm not going to lead a crusade to lynch you because the way you explained a plan reminds of what a scum player in another game did, however. For now I'm looking elsewhere for today's lynch, and I'm watching you. I'm alright with the way you discussed Ghost when talking to Gonzaw, I don't think someone can get a free pass for a terrible vote and then not pushing it at all.

If you want me to keep looking at you, fine. What's up with this?


You've been doing more in thread, but it seems like you're getting on JH for saying he's doing exactly what you've said you're doing. Why is it fine for you to wait to scumhunt until you've got enough to make a case, but it's not alright for JH to wait before pushing someone?

On October 02 2012 02:14 austinmcc wrote:

I don't think that ghost is hiding something (The hiro posts are odd but not...hiding something? A connection to look at if either flips), and I agree that Keirathi is missing part of why ghost voted for him. But dropping a vote on someone, walking away, and never engaging the thread when there's active discussion on your vote is not a thing I like. With most of us pretty inactive, it doesn't stick out as much as it would under different circumstances, but it's still not town conduct.

Nisani and iamperfection both just look similar to me. I don't have experience playing with nisani, and their play is so similar this game that I'm not overly confident in choosing between them, and I find it unlikely both would be scum. I'd rather vote elsewhere and then see how nisani and iamperfection differentiate themselves over time.

---

##Vote: JingleHell

Thinking about thishas me convinced. If he really feels like he played poorly in PTP3, then the solution is to address the "poorly" part of that, rather than the "played" part. Being non-participatory isn't a better route.

On October 02 2012 05:10 austinmcc wrote:

Huwhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa?

This just can't be a scum post. Congrats on being town.

##Unvote

On October 02 2012 05:17 austinmcc wrote:
No, you think scumJH could actually be making that argument?

On October 02 2012 04:26 austinmcc wrote:

---

On Mattchew, it's a couple of his posts. In particular, this one:
I'd just mentioned not liking drazerk/snb being so focused on each other:The fact that Mattchew was similarly critical gives me a townie feel. Drazerk's questions the last couple of pages have been good. I hope he would be playing the same way regardless of my comment or matt's comment, I don't think they influenced him, but he and snb being so focused on each other wasn't really helping town based on the reasoning they were providing.

His iamperfection question to me felt townie. It's...an odd way to phrase something as scum? Like, you can just say "What is your read?" or "Would you vote iamperfection?" Instead he asks why I'm not voting with him, just an odd little bit of creativity. scumMatt from what I'm seen is either disinterested or...claims scum. Creative questions don't fit the bill for either of those.

He's continued to pursue iamperfection, in a noticeably different way than the early voters that I've been critical of. Whereas ghost/nisani just left the thread, and iamperfection stayed focused on ghost, Mattchew has been actively commenting on other matters, has been asking questions to others, has been trying to get iamperfection lynched. It stands out so differently from behavior that I'm finding scummy in others.

---

The gonzaw read is weaker, but the way he returned to thread feels like he was being gonzaw-y. Spammy, finding lots of little stuff, talking about it. In particular, things like this:I like finding odd interactions or posts. This was one of those...interesting finds. Not necessarily scummy, but worth noting. He noted it, explained why he was interested, and then went further later in the post to vote JH after adding in some other stuff. I like that he pulled out a weird interaction, didn't completely disregard it, didn't blast anyone for it, but used it to look further at someone.

He asked this
which was a good question and something I was going to ask until I saw he'd already done so.

He also comes off townie in the way he addresses mementoss here:

As I read it, he's concerned with mementoss's post on me. Instead of straight-up saying that, or directly confronting mementoss, he just sort of asks this minor question. What are you doing with it now?

It shows me that he's trying to piece things together, that he's actively thinking about alignments. He could have burst in with "this post makes me feel weird," but he doesn't, and dangling that question out without giving a full read comes of townie to me.

On October 02 2012 07:08 austinmcc wrote:
Okay, finally seeing some differentiation in some of our early voters.

Right now I'm liking ghost's recent outburst and he replaces nisani as the towniest of the three.

I actually really like this point:I was so focused on Keirathi's explanations for his mattchew vote that I overlooked this.

It does seem off that the contrived case to get discussion going would have more work put into it, and some reliance on meta, when compared to keirathi's actual vote. Especially when players who have played with nisani said he seems townie based off past games. For some reason it makes this post hang in my mind:


Keirathi notes that he went way back into Mattchew's games to be complete, for the case that was intended to generate discussion. Keirathi notes that he spends a lot of time in filters even as scum.

But now it's just 5 minutes:
I'm assuming keirathi didn't time himself, but this + the explanation of the mattchew case/vote + things like this + Show Spoiler + = scummy without just relying on someone else's play in another game

##Vote: Keirathi

On October 03 2012 03:45 austinmcc wrote:
Concerning Mementoss Gonzaw, he and keirathi are sort of right up there with each other for the people I'm considering for active scum.

It's a couple little things:

(1) His comments on me feel slightly forcedI can't see what Drazerk is saying. I think the game is getting off to a good start. I don't explain why the unvote isn't scummy well enough for mementoss's liking. I lack logic. I am trying to make Drazerk look bad.

I addres some of those points here:
See GSL Open II for slow start, which I'd just been killed in. See Drazerk's vote for an option that Keirathi was an "idiot," yet he never really addressed why he was dismissing that option and finding Keirathi to be third party. At least not that I've seen.

Note also that in this post I say I didn't find Keirathi's conduct scummy. I say this. I didn't find Keirathi's early play scummy.


(2) By the time mementoss posts this, I was finding Keirathi scummy because of the EXPLANATION that he was giving for his mattchew vote/unvote:+ Show Spoiler +

Ymmv, but I'm pretty clearly focused on Keirathi's explanations for the entire thing, not the ease at which he unvoted, which is what I was initially defending/not finding scummy:I'm not concerned with the vote/unvote in the posts that have happened between mementoss's case and this, I'm concerned with Keirathi's explanation for the whole Mattchew shebang, that he wanted opinions yet stopped before he got them, and then stated he didn't need anyone else's opinion.

So I don't get mementoss's post:
we may just disagree that I completely switched stances. Which is fine. I said I didn't find Keirathi's early play scummy. After looking at his explanation further, I did. I'm probably splitting hairs in trying to separate the vote/unvote from the explanation, but that's because I still don't find the vote/unvote with ease scummy, but I DO find the explanation scummy. They point in different ways for me.

But the bolded part here gets stuck in my head. I don't see any post concerning me "flip flopping." I don't see a comment in his initial vote on me about that. I don't see a comment at any point while I'm going back and forth with Keirathi about me flip flopping. This is the first time I see it, and I have no idea what it's referencing. This is ODD. It gives off scummy vibes, because it indicates that mementoss misremembers what he was calling me out for (not focused on actually calling me out, more focused on just making a case), or, the more paranoid option, that this is part of some planned attack and there's a post that should have come, calling me a flip-flopper, but never did. Neither option gives me a townie feeling.

(3) Then he's got this post as well:That post does read weird, because he's reading it seriously. Like I said to keirathi, + Show Spoiler +

Mattchew's question looked silly. I gave a silly answer. I am sometimes silly in thread. But mementoss pulls this up later:
Read my vote/unvote. I'm not sheeping onto iamperfection because Mattchew asks me to. I vote him as a JOKE, unvote him, and then ask why I should be lynching iamperfection over ghost/nisani, and why I find the three to be similar. I do not know how this is interpreted as me jumping on a wagon. If I were jumping on a wagon, I wouldn't unvote and ask why I was lynching one instead of the other two. I was joking and then seriously asking mattchew why he was on iamperfection over others.

Again, it's this weird disconnect where mementoss doesn't quite seem to be reading my responses. Or he just dislikes my responses but never really voices that when they come out. I misread him in Rock Band as scum when he was town, and I'm not getting as strong a scum read here, but flip flop posts that don't actually exist, not really reading my posts but continuing to just poke at me don't result in a townie feel.


This quip stuck out to me as well, just as very interesting:
(Mementoss, why is Gonzaw the N1 kill? I'd like to see your reasoning behind this statement)



Beyond that, I agree with all three of these:I remember him being around a good bit, I remember some posts of his, but I'm not sure that I would if he didn't attack me. He kind of blended in, and there were some major points (Mattchew trying to drum up iamperfection lynch, the JH discussion, the ghost/keirathi bit at the end) where he's just not seeming concerned. But yet he didn't move off of iamperfection, and attacked him early, and also responded to keirathi about iamperfection's meta.


A lot of his posts on me just confuse me. They don't give me a townie vibe, but he's picking up on things that I would probably pick up on as well. The joke-vote looks really odd when it's just text and I didn't put a disclaimer as to what I was doing. But it feels like he's detached from actually pushing me, just like he was detached from pushing iamperfection. And that "flip-flopping" comment...I can't figure out where that comes from. Am I being overly paranoid thinking there was some sequence of posts he thought he'd made?

I'm still more sold on Keirathi as the active scum. But mementoss is my secondary candidate, and if I'm being purely speculative, one of the people I could most see being third party. It's the only way I can really rectify my read based on his general play AND the fact that he voted for scum. So I want to keep an eye on him even though he voted iamperfection.