TWG CIV: FFR Tournament - Reality Parallax

[thesunfan]

Is there any problem with me agreeing with someone, if I like their logic? I wasn't aware that that was a problem in this game.

[James May]

Originally Posted by thesunfan

Is there any problem with me agreeing with someone, if I like their logic? I wasn't aware that that was a problem in this game.

Note that I said TRUST, not LIKE. It's not a problem agreein with someone but ideally having your own set of evidence does help boost your own vote.

[James May]

*agreeing
Blast this tablet...

[thesunfan]

This is the problem I have with a D1 lynch without a night kill, there's basically nothing to go off of. Yeah, I agree with what Charu has said regarding you, and I also agree that nothing will happen unless a commotion is created, but its very unlikely that we're going to get a red D1, based on virtually nothing. Its not the end of the world if a green dies today, and its also not gg if a blue is outed, but there's nothing to go off of. The wolves, for the most part will sit back, offer as little as possible, and maybe tag a vote or two onto the person that ends up with a rope around their neck.

But I am realistic. I know that we're going to kill someone today. All I'm saying is that they're most likely going to be a human.

But yeah, this is only a D1 suggestion by me. For sure, there shouldn't be any mention of a no-lynch after today, and I'm fairly sure I'll get mocked by someone saying it shouldn't be on the table at all.

[Vendetta21]

In C9++ our day 1 lynch of wolves runs like 40% accuracy which is definitely higher than elsewhere. Day 1 is actually harder for wolves because they have no idea what to expect and no sense of how they are going to control the game yet.

Stop whining about shit you have no idea if it is even true or not. Basing theory that dictates gameplay off your weak impressions that lack experience is stupid, and also self-fulfilling.

I question whether or not this continued whining is actually just you having trouble finding your human voice without some silhouette of data to outline people's thoughts and impressions of the wolves.

[dAnceguy117]

Originally Posted by Funnygurl555

I don't think he's even proved his own innocence.
unless he did and I'm missing something o3o

no one can prove innocence except in rare circumstances. that does not render someone's arguments or votes invalid. it does, however, mean that "trust" should be at a minimum.

Originally Posted by James May

the reason why I don't "talk" in that motion o your vote because I feel like in order to make someone talk, you need substance in your votes.

completely disagreed. if I were to have 5+ votes on me, even if none of those votes were backed by any reasoning, I would be saying something. votes are important in and of themselves.

[Vendetta21]

Originally Posted by Gradiant

And how exactly does one work through stuff we don't have?
The only way to start off is to do as Vendetta is suggesting.

And as such...Riotpolice

alright we're running out of time and it seems like you douchebags are mostly playing outside the thread so i guess i'll start something here.

so here's what we have with gradiant

First, he takes a suggestion. Why else would he both vote for the person I'm voting for and note my suggestion? Because what I said had an impact on what he was thinking. Taking a suggestion as a new player indicates that you have read something someone else has said and realize "oh yes, that is true I hadn't thought of that."

This is a complicated game, things people say constantly cause me to reframe and change my perspective.

I made four posts about things I thought were relevant to the way we are approaching the game and he read them. These things started with riotpolice getting caught up in corner-case theory about how we should proceed if the day follows trend A or trend B (called corner-case here because the day could follow many unlisted trends and there is no way to predict the way the day will play out at all, so trying to determine outcomes of a hypothetical situation feels like wasted movement.) I was thinking to myself "oh we're wasting our limited amount of attention and focus on this dumb problem, let's instead try to think about how people are approaching the game." It's why I use vitriol in these situations, it makes continuing the behavior uncomfortable because I'm being mean.

Naturally it's expected from me, and I think anyone who reads that, to think about the game from my perspective a little. That's the point of saying anything.

My vote on riotpolice was about trying to get him to stop a behavior. It was not because I thought he was a wolf. But Gradiant did think he was a wolf, or at least enough to add a second vote so soon! My suggestions didn't do anything to indicate riotpolice's wolfiness and the initial reasoning was really weak. So why, when you are being impacted by someone's suggestions, would you suddenly vote for the person they were voting for?

if you are a human the reasons are:
-you like the way they think and trust them enough

if you are a wolf the reasons are:
-to associate with this person's thinking
-to help lead a mislynch

It could get more complicated, but I'm talking about a new player here so I'm analyzing it from the perspective of someone who couldn't possibly have layers upon layers of double-think frosted on to their shitcake meta. It's entirely possible that the first is true, but I just have a vague impression based on the fact that gradiant failed to understand riotpolice's post (he implied he understood riotpolice to be suggesting a no-lynch when he was suggesting not-insta-lynch) but that he did understand mine enough to agree with me, that he couldn't have gotten a strong impression that riotpolice was wolfy, and that it's more likely the latter two reasons bulleted above.

so yeah that's what i got so far, but you fuckers are lazy and not contributing so we'll so where it goes from here

gradiant

[yo man im awesome]

A votecount, perhaps?

[Riotpolice]

V, I like that kind of thinking. I want to see what Gradients thoughts are concerning this matter, now I am curious if he voted for me for the same reason you previously voted for me...

Originally Posted by Vendetta21

so yeah that's what i got so far, but you fuckers are lazy and not contributing so we'll so where it goes from here

gradiant

Thanks for the stern suggestion, I'll continue to learn about contributing more to the thread in the future...

[Gradiant]

Originally Posted by Vendetta21

First, he takes a suggestion. Why else would he both vote for the person I'm voting for and note my suggestion? Because what I said had an impact on what he was thinking. Taking a suggestion as a new player indicates that you have read something someone else has said and realize "oh yes, that is true I hadn't thought of that."

As a new player of this game, I was unsure of whether or not to start voting early, and then had to post after I got back from work.
I was going to make that post before you even made yours. Don't feel so special that I happened to share your opinion at the time, you're not that important

Originally Posted by Vendetta21

This is a complicated game, things people say constantly cause me to reframe and change my perspective.

Who said this was my final vote? Don't think you're the only one allowed to have a fluid perspective and that I'm just copying you.

Originally Posted by Vendetta21

My vote on riotpolice was about trying to get him to stop a behavior. It was not because I thought he was a wolf. But Gradiant did think he was a wolf, or at least enough to add a second vote so soon! My suggestions didn't do anything to indicate riotpolice's wolfiness and the initial reasoning was really weak. So why, when you are being impacted by someone's suggestions, would you suddenly vote for the person they were voting for?

It's literally impossible to pick out wolves at this point in the game.
Only thing people are able to go off of are slips in posts (James May) or suggestions that seem kind of dumb (Riotpolice).
I was voting early to get stuff happening because it certainly wasn't enough at that point to do anything important.

Originally Posted by Vendetta21

if you are a human the reasons are:
-you like the way they think and trust them enough

if you are a wolf the reasons are:
-to associate with this person's thinking
-to help lead a mislynch.

Or none of these?
I certainly don't see how a mislynch could occur with practically nothing to go on in the game thus far. I also don't associate with your thinking because you said it first.
You don't know what my opinions were before making it and I'm sorry I don't have the time to be in here more to post more often.
That being said, just because I share a opinion at least for a tiny bit doesn't mean I like the way the you post (doesn't mean I hate it necessarily),
and I am unsure if I trust you based on you voting for me because you think I'm copying your voting. Your three points are false.

Originally Posted by Vendetta21

I just have a vague impression based on the fact that gradiant failed to understand riotpolice's post (he implied he understood riotpolice to be suggesting a no-lynch when he was suggesting not-insta-lynch) but that he did understand mine enough to agree with me, that he couldn't have gotten a strong impression that riotpolice was wolfy, and that it's more likely the latter two reasons bulleted above.

Maybe I did misunderstand the no-lynch/insta-lynch terminology, but even so, the ball has to get rolling by stuff you know, actually happening
If you go through the whole thing slowly (you have nothing to go off of because nobody would be voting or responding to said votes), you end up with nothing and a dead thread.

[Gradiant]

Originally Posted by James May

Okay. Like I said, gonna need more than a vote to get me to talk

Originally Posted by James May

funnygurl
Would like to see more insight from her. Especially what she thinks so far of everyone. Its Day 1 but eh, eenie meenie miney moe vote ain't gonna cut it~

So one vote won't make you say anything but you were expecting Funnygurl to talk from you putting a vote for her?
Your vote to get her to talk contradicts heavily with

Originally Posted by James May

the reason why I don't "talk" in that motion o your vote because I feel like in order to make someone talk, you need substance in your votes. A vote is just a plain outlier in the realm of reasoning if you don't have something to hold it together. It's like an accusation per se. In order to accuse someone, you need evidence, which is why I never take a vote without any reasoning seriously.

And see now Vendetta: now that stuff has happened after my first vote, it has changed.
James May

[Vendetta21]

Originally Posted by Gradiant

Don't feel so special that I happened to share your opinion at the time, you're not that important

....

Don't think you're the only one allowed to have a fluid perspective and that I'm just copying you.

...

Your three points are false.

If this were KFC I would say these three things are a sandwich without a bread.

You mentioned my name and then proceeded to vote for the same person, so why would any reasonable person assume you were acting out of something else other than a suggestion? Especially when you seem to feel that there isn't much going on in the thread. I don't think I'm special but I also don't ever really try to distance myself from the influence others have on me.

So we'll take it at face value that you came to the same conclusion as me, decided to vote for the same person as me, and your vote was also fluid and non-serious like mine -- but in no way was it influenced by my vote or reasoning. The spontaneous meeting of two like minds. Obviously the simplest conclusion to make in that context. I should stop thinking I'm so special, it's clouding my judgment.

[YoshL]

Votecount:

(1) Riotpolice - Gradiant, funnygurl555, dAnceguy117
(2) Xiv - yo man im awesome, mellonxcollie
(0) thesunfan - Xiv
(1) Charu - thesunfan, Xiv
(0) dAnceguy117 - FoJar
(0) Netjet! - dAnceguy117
(3) Funnygurl555 - Svaz, James May, Silvuh
(0) Silvuh - ~
(2) Vendetta21 - FoJar, funnygurl555
(0) mellonxcollie - ~
(3) James May - thesunfan, Charu, Gradiant
(0) Svaz - ~
(2) Gradiant - James May, Vendetta21, Riotpolice
(0) yo man im awesome - ~
(0) FoJar - ~

Yet to vote: Netjet!

Xiv -> thesunfan
FoJar -> dAnceguy117
James May -> Gradiant
thesunfan -> Charu
FoJar -> Vendetta21
Vendetta21 -> Riotpolice
dAnceguy117 -> Netjet!
Gradiant -> Riotpolice
yo man im awesome -> Xiv
funnygurl555 - Riotpolice
dAnceguy117 - Riotpolice
thesunfan - James May
Svaz - funnygurl555
mellonxcollie - Xiv
James May - funnygurl555
funnygurl555 - Vendetta21
Xiv - Charu
Charu - James May
Silvuh - funnygurl555
Vendetta21 - Gradiant
Vendetta21 - Gradiant
Riotpolice - Gradiant
Gradiant - James May

reminder that day 1 ends Nov. 19th at 11:59 PM EST

[Gradiant]

Originally Posted by Vendetta21

So we'll take it at face value that you came to the same conclusion as me, decided to vote for the same person as me, and your vote was also fluid and non-serious like mine -- but in no way was it influenced by my vote or reasoning. The spontaneous meeting of two like minds. Obviously the simplest conclusion to make in that context. I should stop thinking I'm so special, it's clouding my judgment.

Well yes in a way. If I say 1+1=2 then that's a statement. If you say the same thing, am I going to make long post saying you're copying me and that you answered the same only because I did so first? Or that your answer is obviously influenced by mine? No. Of course not, because that is simply stupid. With so little to go on at the point when the post was made, opinions made personally by people not posted in the thread are obviously going to coincide due to there being no other information. Maybe others had not posted theirs as well due to being afraid you'll jump down their throats.

[Vendetta21]

the difference here from math being that nobody here agrees on how to even go about playing the game, so it's not like my perspective on TWG is hitting at some underlying truth that will always surface over many iterations.

what i interpret this as currently is you initially feeling like saying that you just came to the same conclusions was a way to save face, and now that you've committed to it you can't back away.

if i make a comment or decision that is disingenious and i haven't fully caught or realized it typically i find myself scrambling in those moments for rationale. making something that sounds good or coherent is easy, but if you thoroughly examine the context the explanation probably doesn't match if you are trying to mask a hidden intention.

so as a voter in this thread you should ask yourself if you think gradiant's "you're not special i came to the same conclusions and posted it immediately after you" fits with a hasty explanation for hidden intentions OR if his actions fit a general mood or tone of the thread that multiple people could have been having at that time.

i honestly don't know from my perspective because all i saw was directionless movement.

[Xiz]

Okay so I just graduated. I can pay attention to this thread now.


After reading everything, James looks like such a wolf haha. Notice how he hasn't posted anything recently after being called out.

I'mma keep my eye on him.

[Xiz]

Okay so I just graduated. I can pay attention to this thread now.


After reading everything, James looks like such a wolf haha. Notice how he hasn't posted anything recently after being called out.

I'mma keep my eye on him.

[Xiz]

Woops. Crappy internet. My b.

[dAnceguy117]

oh no you don't.

you're simply "keeping an eye" on James as you hop on the James wagon to make it +1 over Gradiant's and +2 over yours? and James looks like "such a wolf" due to not responding to the 2 newest votes against him, despite responding to all of the prior ones and leading the thread in postcount?

Xiz to throw you back in the fray. try again.




V, I think I understand what you're saying, but I don't feel too compelled by it.

[Xiz]

Darn you foiled my plan danceguy!

I was so close to giving a fuck what you think.