Print

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

[webadict]

I can't recall having ever seen your intuition, scumhunting style, or mindset actually win a game. Certainly not without making a lot of mistakes along the way (and usually specifically turning on me for some reason).

Totem Mafia was won by me, unless you think pressing TricMagic was too big of a mistake, or something else of that manner. But, winning a game is winning a game. Calculated risks are a part of that.

The point is that it's not never, and I think that what you said is from a place of emotion rather than logic. There are plenty of games I have won with it. I think personally that your playstyle doesn't mesh with mine, which is probably why you think it doesn't work.

Your playstyle is far more muted and introspective, and you keep more of your observations withheld. For me, that is incredibly suspicious, since you cannot be held liable for your views, you cannot be shown to progress views, and you cannot have your words used against you. It is a low-risk, low-reward style. That simply won't work for me.

I think you are putting words and motivations in my mouth, though. It's not that I am unwilling to change. The truth is more in the middle: It is not any more my responsibility to change than it is yours. I gave you the rationale behind my actions so that you would understand, and what you choose to do with that information is up to you. I made the moves that I thought would be most beneficial, and if you think I should change how I play, then why should I listen when you refuse to acquiesce the same?

[EuchreJack]

I think we're not giving Scum enough credit here.
They voted their king, then managed to get their king unvoted.
So the wagon Max created was much less solid than it appeared.

Uh, I think the game is over now, and sadly I think players have learned whatever lessons they're open to learning. Further discussion seems pointless now.

As for me, I had correctly identified both Max and Web as Town and Toony as scum. I had not correctly identified Knightwing64 as scum, but one of my Town reads had done so.
Jim, due to hostility towards me, was impossible for me to read as Town.
I should have respected my known town player Max more, and I should have tried harder to get Max & Web to get along. We had a group of 3 townies, so we could have done better.
Frankly, not having Toonyman as one of the two was a mistake.

[Maximum Spin]

Totem Mafia was won by me, unless you think pressing TricMagic was too big of a mistake, or something else of that manner. But, winning a game is winning a game. Calculated risks are a part of that.

The point is that it's not never, and I think that what you said is from a place of emotion rather than logic.

No, it's actually just that I don't remember Totem Mafia at all, so I couldn't include it among games that I recall. I only remember that I was a pangolin and got killed really quickly. For anything else, I'll take your word for it. I'm sure you do win, rather the point I was making is this: you seem to expect me to trust your instincts, since you shouted at me a lot for not being willing to say EuchreJack was locktown, but you need to actually build that trust first. How can you expect me to accept your idea of your insight into EuchreJack when in the same breath you said that I was definitely scum this game? You can say, well, you're good at one thing and not the other, but I can only judge your intuition as a whole. Since you express such confidence about things I know are definitely wrong, your confidence is inherently not something I can count on. You can't go back and tell me you took a calculated risk when you said you were certain. I mean, you can, but you can't then expect me to believe you when you say you're certain the next time.

I think you are putting words and motivations in my mouth, though. It's not that I am unwilling to change. The truth is more in the middle: It is not any more my responsibility to change than it is yours. I gave you the rationale behind my actions so that you would understand, and what you choose to do with that information is up to you. I made the moves that I thought would be most beneficial, and if you think I should change how I play, then why should I listen when you refuse to acquiesce the same?

Look, I think I'm not expressing what I want very well here. I know that I have a tendency to argue "all over the place" because I keep trying to follow up on stray thoughts and account for everything the other party might possibly say. I wrote out a long paragraph here, but I have deleted it to replace with this one (that will probably end up being just as long), and simply say: I don't want you to change how you play. I just want us, next time, to work less at cross-purposes and not waste so much energy arguing over something that didn't even matter because neither of us even wanted the other to change his vote. All that accomplished was giving ToonyMan a good enough reason to change his vote that Jim was convinced to follow along. Sure, we can say, Jim was wrong to do it, but it shouldn't have been that easy. I always think everyone should go with his gut in this game, but you seem to have - said that you did - scumread me for not going with your gut. Everything I have been saying is just to say "this is why I'm not willing to trust your word completely, so please don't think I'm scum just because I don't trust your word completely". This has the unfortunate effect of making it sound like I think you're a bad player because I'm complaining about your instincts not being good enough, but the thing is, I'm only saying that they're not good enough for me to be perfectly confident in them. That's not really that bad, because it's an infinitely high bar. So, I don't want you to get sidetracked by thinking that I'm telling you you need to change your strategy... I just hope you'll be more understanding that other people (in this case, me and Jim) don't always follow your intuition as faithfully. I mean, even then — jeez, this might end up longer than the one I deleted now — even if you do scumread people for that, that's one thing, but I think the lengthy argument over nothing between us was unnecessary and I don't want to repeat that every game because it just makes it easier for the mafia. I think I can leave it at that for now, hopefully that was clear enough.

[webadict]

Hmm... That's partially fair. I'm actually not expecting anyone to go with my gut (except EuchreJack), so that was less the issue than it was perhaps that I have a bad habit of scumreading you. Jim is a different story, but that's not related.

I'd say that if you happen to encounter a problem like this again, and Euchre isn't around to fix it, a short post recommending a different course of action may be more persuasive than any longer post. I figure that's a good compromise, since it allows a reset period.

[Maximum Spin]

I'd say that if you happen to encounter a problem like this again, and Euchre isn't around to fix it, a short post recommending a different course of action may be more persuasive than any longer post. I figure that's a good compromise, since it allows a reset period.

I'll do my best. I tend to be either too terse or too prolix, never in between.