Here's the famous #126 in it's entirety.
bazilisek: You can spin your tales all day long, but there is one thing that doesn't check out, at all.
Everyone, look at the post history. Posts 21, 22, 23. Zchinque threw out the mass claim thing. There was
only one reaction to that, and that was Damnation's. Immediately afterwards (there are no timestamps on this forum, but I believe these posts were within an hour or two at most of each other), Zchinque
votes for AI1, who speaks about the mass claim
only in post 26. The rationale we've been presented crumbles apart pretty quickly, eh? Prodding for reactions is fine, but you have to actually
wait for the reactions afterwards for it to work, I believe.
Another smaller thing: the players are at very uneven starting positions here, but that's something we'll have to live with, I suppose. Could I just ask everyone not to drag GOG Mafia 1 too much into this? I didn't follow that game too closely and I'm not exactly willing to read all of it now.
bazilisek: You can spin your tales all day long, but there is one thing that doesn't check out, at all.
Oh, but it does.
Everyone, look at the post history.
I encourage everyone to look over my entire post history. It is really quite fascinating reading material, if I must say so myself.
Posts 21, 22, 23. Zchinque threw out the mass claim thing.
I prefer "carefully slipped into the conversation", but otherwise quite correct.
There was only one reaction to that, and that was Damnation's. Immediately afterwards
An undeniable fact, my good man.
(there are no timestamps on this forum, but I believe these posts were within an hour or two at most of each other),
The lack of timestamps is rather annoying, I agree.
Zchinque votes for AI1,
I did. In fact, I believe I still am voting for Al1. Seems it was a good vote, that.
who speaks about the mass claim only in post 26.
Ah, yes, he did. And a very fencesitty post it was. I remember it well.
The rationale we've been presented crumbles apart pretty quickly, eh?
What rationale?
I guess you mean (correct me if I am mistaken) that I have said that the rationale for my vote in post #23 is Al1's fencesitting in #26. This would indeed look rather bad for me.
Except, of course, that I have said no such thing. (oooh, delicious deja vu)
Prodding for reactions is fine,
It's not only fine, it is a very valuable strategy.
but you have to actually wait for the reactions afterwards for it to work, I believe.
You are quite correct. After all, we, or at least I, can not with certainty tell what the outcome of something will be before it actually happens.
Now, you see,
I have not yet explained my reasons for voting Al1. At the time of voting that is, my reasons now are quite different - general fencesitting, preferring to lynch someone he doesn't think scum.
Of course, by now my actual reasons for voting Al1 (I must stress, again, at the time - my reasons now are quite different) will seem rather anticlimactic.
So, I have never said that my vote was made due to him being wishywashy on the question of mass claiming. (Please, look over my posts to confirm that this is correct)
The one who claimed that was the reason, was Jess - here:
jesskitten: Typhoon, he DID explain the vote on Al1. It was fence-sitting, it's basically a scum tell to be wishy washy about potential big issues and present both sides of the argument and then ending up neutral, scum do that because they can then sidle off the fence onto the side that the town supports in the end, so that they more likely escape the scrutiny from the town of having made "a wrong choice". The town's goal is not to survive, but lynch the mafia no matter how many of them it takes, for all of them win in the end if they hit all the Mafia. The Mafia are a lot more preoccupied with, and worried about, survival, as they are outnumbered to start and have to make fake cases to get someone mislynched, so they like to slide onto others' bandwagons to hide, and also to make it more likely a mislynch or misstep will occur, but not be able to be traced back to them as they didn't put forth the idea.
Now, why
did I actually vote for Al1 when I did?
Oh, not all that much, really. His
second pots seemed a bit off, and read rather forced to me. There is also a touch of fence sitting in it ;)
But then why the rather assuredly tone in my vote? After all, what I said when voting was this:
Zchinque: Vote Al1.
First scum identified.
Well, frankly, why not?
By sounding very assured and confident, Al1's reactions (oooh, there is that word again) to the vote are likely to be much stronger, one way or another, than if I do it really wishywashy. Compare to how many votes in GOG Mafia #1 were worded - "I don't really want to vote for you, because you might be town, but we need to get the game forwards. Please don't be angry :( *runs away crying in a corner*" (paraphrased and totally hyperboled).
While both votes count the same towards a lynch, one is much more threatening than the other, and is more likely to get the scum nervous. And nervous scum make mistakes.
Had that still been all, I would not have kept my vote on Al1 for all this time, but his play since then has been consistently anti-town.
Another smaller thing: the players are at very uneven starting positions here, but that's something we'll have to live with, I suppose. Could I just ask everyone not to drag GOG Mafia 1 too much into this? I didn't follow that game too closely and I'm not exactly willing to read all of it now.
Meta-analysis can be a very valuable tool, and I for one will use it whenever I find it relevant. When that happens, you and anyone who are unfamiliar with the out-of-game content will have three choices:
-Look up the source material and draw their own conclusions.
-Don't look up the source material and ignore the argument presented.
-Don't look up the source material and take the argument presented at face value.
@Jess: I agree, preview option would be dandy.