[Path-Shaper]

Suibara Takaeie led his raiding group of Uesugi closer to the river, keeping them within the trees and out of sight of the Takeda column. They would soon push forward in an attempt to take some of the straggling Takeda column by surprise.

Shouts of alarm suddenly sounded from his men as a group of Takeda troops, led by Kosaka Masanobu, burst from cover and engaged his men. Surprise lost, Takaeie gave the order to retreat, which his men gladly executed.


It is Day 2. 36 hours are left in the day.

17 Players still alive: Anomandaris, Apparal Forge, Denesmet, Denul, Eloth, Emurlahn, Gait, Grasp, Hanas, Kadagar Fant, Korlat, Merrid, Olar Ethil, Omtose, Shadow, Telas, Ultama

9 votes to lynch, 9 votes to go to night.

[Hanas]

Vote Kadagar Fant
Because I've got a suspicion and I want to see where it goes.

[Kadagar Fant]

Hanas, on 03 February 2016 - 11:39 PM, said:

Vote Kadagar Fant
Because I've got a suspicion and I want to see where it goes.

Mhmm. You're not likely to get very far if you don't give reasons for why you're voting me.

[Korlat]

Kadagar Fant, on 04 February 2016 - 12:35 AM, said:

Hanas, on 03 February 2016 - 11:39 PM, said:

Vote Kadagar Fant
Because I've got a suspicion and I want to see where it goes.

Mhmm. You're not likely to get very far if you don't give reasons for why you're voting me.

Yeah, what exactly are your reasons for your suspicion?

[Hanas]

Korlat, on 04 February 2016 - 01:28 AM, said:

Kadagar Fant, on 04 February 2016 - 12:35 AM, said:

Hanas, on 03 February 2016 - 11:39 PM, said:

Vote Kadagar Fant
Because I've got a suspicion and I want to see where it goes.

Mhmm. You're not likely to get very far if you don't give reasons for why you're voting me.

Yeah, what exactly are your reasons for your suspicion?

The vote train in which everyone piled on Fandy after Kadagar, and also my night action cleared someone else I had a feeling about.
So I'm going to explore what happens when I vote Kadagar.

[Shadow]

Hanas, on 03 February 2016 - 11:39 PM, said:

Vote Kadagar Fant
Because I've got a suspicion and I want to see where it goes.

tempting to join to see where hanas experiment will go.

That being said in all the drama that happened in the previous day Omtose didn't really make any points just drove by lynching. Strikes me as the kind of behavior where you're trying to fly under the radar.

Im hoping to be on for the next little while. If not its good night for now.

[Path-Shaper]

The marching for the Takeda is becoming monotonous, but tensions are rising because they know the enemy is close. Early contact by scouts makes it clear the Uesugi are in place, or very soon will be. Battle is imminent, and the foot soldiers are keeping their eyes and ears open. The accidental death of Oyamada has them further on edge. The Takeda generals hope that the battle begins soon, before debilitating anxiety takes hold.

[Merrid]

Aparal Forge, on 03 February 2016 - 06:59 PM, said:

So, it swings Fanderay's way, huh? I don't have anything against voting for either Fanderay or Anomander, so I'll probably vote Fanderay with the lynch trains as they are. My personal choice would have been Merrid, as they seemed keen to keep us from looking into the lynch train building on Ano. When I actually questioned Merrid about that, Merrid suddenly stopped responding to me (while they were still present on thread). I find that odd.

I'll hold off casting my vote until the vote count is cleared up.

Oi, I hurt your ego?

In all honesty, you say above that I wanted to defuse people from looking into the Ano train. That same train that my vote was on, you mean? If I wanted to defuse away from Ano, why the fuck wouldn't I push the Fanderay lynch?
Or do you mean that I didn't want the Ano lynch to be examined, before it was pushed? Then let's follow your quote:

Aparal Forge, on 03 February 2016 - 01:42 PM, said:

Merrid, on 03 February 2016 - 01:31 PM, said:

And how do you identify such a player if you are afraid of exposing your own?

This generally results in a no-lynch attitude where no-one is making waves.
That's been the bane of faction games on this board throughout the last 60 games or so, especially if there is a leadership pyramid and/or roughly equally strong factions in a game. Players simply won't move without their leader's example to go by - after which everyone and their mother on that faction generally follows and the lines in the sand become almost entirely cleared up.

Usually, up until that point the game stagnates into night phase shenanigans with the thread merely existing to avoid mod-kills and reading Path-Shaper's announcements.

Oh, I disagree with you. The thing here is that there's not a "no-lynch" attitude at the moment, but a lynch train building quickly with hardly any discussion in between and, at that point, plenty of time left until end-of-day. Instead of just going along with that, I stopped and wondered why that's happening. In a faction game, that's not an absurd thing to do, so why are you actively trying to disengage me from doing that?

So, the exact credentials you build on for yourself, I applied as well, see below. Yet you call me out on that?

Merrid, on 03 February 2016 - 08:16 AM, said:

As tempting as it is to put a vote down on Ano (for what is a fairly decent reason) and resume work, this train is going a teeny tiny bit too fast (compared to the post count) for my taste.

So, for now, I will hold my horses.

I later reiterate this, here, http://forum.malazan...ost__p__1219236


So, in hindsight, I think it is pretty obvious what I did, and why. I also really fail to see how this could be such a big deal, as it is standard (and good) mafia practice.

I only placed my vote after Ano continued his passive/aggressive approach 4 posts long in a quick scattershot on everyone who had voted for him, but what I wanted, had happened: he got a chance to get a word in.

My assessment of his posts (as well as my original reason for seeing something in voting him) was that he felt threatened and was jumpy, instead of brushing it away. Might have been because he was the only person with votes on them at that point, but it was still enough for me to put a vote on.

As for the stuff I didn't reply to, you failed to include the previous bit of the discussion. Which is here:

Merrid, on 03 February 2016 - 01:31 PM, said:

Aparal Forge, on 03 February 2016 - 12:49 PM, said:

Merrid, on 03 February 2016 - 12:05 PM, said:

Both you and Ano use this reasoning. It's bullshit to brand jumpiness as scumminess.
It's not about identifying scum. It is identifying juicy roles and see whether or not people are willing to defend those juicy roles.

What I was actually trying to convey is that I don't trust the arguments based on defensiveness and sympiness to be based solely on defensiveness and sympiness as this is a faction game and ulterior motives based on faction alignment suspicions might also be in play. For one, you must be damn certain that, when you think you've identified a player with an important role or ability that the player does not belong to your faction. So jumping on "defensiveness" alone will not do, you need to have information about the alignment of your target, except, of course, if you're unaligned yourself or an important figure in your own faction so you feel fairly save to lynch other suspected important roles.

And how do you identify such a player if you are afraid of exposing your own?

This generally results in a no-lynch attitude where no-one is making waves.
That's been the bane of faction games on this board throughout the last 60 games or so, especially if there is a leadership pyramid and/or roughly equally strong factions in a game. Players simply won't move without their leader's example to go by - after which everyone and their mother on that faction generally follows and the lines in the sand become almost entirely cleared up.

Usually, up until that point the game stagnates into night phase shenanigans with the thread merely existing to avoid mod-kills and reading Path-Shaper's announcements.

You argue for certainty in alignment before voting, against a lynching mood. You indirectly support the call that Fanderay must have been unaligned for being aggressive with their vote - something that came up amongst multiple players who voted for Fanderay, incidentally.

So, my initial point was that in general sterile play for fear of lynching your own faction (your initial point) leads to passivity. You then state there was in this specific case a lynching mood, based on the Ano train (because iirc there was very little steam building on Fanderay there and then).

Like I said above, I wanted to gauge Ano's response before voting, to at worst get the lynching mood into a lynching mood with reasoned arguments. Just like you pride yourself on, with your stepping back bit.

So I honestly fail to see how this is not a pot/kettle/black situation.

I don't think this was such a huge issue at all, however, since it is mostly theorycraft and not particular to the cases and trains at hand at that point in time. Surely not bad enough to drag up, and the only reason I give this exhausting reply (it took me over a fucking hour, at consultancy fees - my boss will be delighted) is to solve this issue once and for all.

As for not replying to you: like I said, I didn't think this was a huge and highly on-topic issue. I am deeply sorry that I hurt your fragile little ego.
I am very sure that the Japanese have a special and highly formal ceremonial thingie to attone for this horrible sin, but since we're in the middle of a war, can that wait until after all the slaughter has finished?

Now, if you could clear up something for me: why do you act surprised that the train swung Fanderay's way? He was your preferred target from the start, since it was you who more or less floated the "Fandy = independent" theory?

Aparal Forge, on 03 February 2016 - 12:49 PM, said:

What I was actually trying to convey is that I don't trust the arguments based on defensiveness and sympiness to be based solely on defensiveness and sympiness as this is a faction game and ulterior motives based on faction alignment suspicions might also be in play. For one, you must be damn certain that, when you think you've identified a player with an important role or ability that the player does not belong to your faction. So jumping on "defensiveness" alone will not do, you need to have information about the alignment of your target, except, of course, if you're unaligned yourself or an important figure in your own faction so you feel fairly save to lynch other suspected important roles.

[Merrid]

Hanas, on 03 February 2016 - 11:39 PM, said:

Vote Kadagar Fant
Because I've got a suspicion and I want to see where it goes.

Interesting. Very interesting. *forms pyramid between fingers, strokes moustache - wait, that takes three hands... "You there, lackey, form a pyramid with your fingers!" resumes stroking moustache*

Anyway, inklings like this are always intriguing, but asking people of opposing alignments who may be uncertain about your own, to trust you, is a tough deal.

[Emurlahn]

Shadow, on 04 February 2016 - 01:49 AM, said:

Hanas, on 03 February 2016 - 11:39 PM, said:

Vote Kadagar Fant
Because I've got a suspicion and I want to see where it goes.

tempting to join to see where hanas experiment will go.

That being said in all the drama that happened in the previous day Omtose didn't really make any points just drove by lynching. Strikes me as the kind of behavior where you're trying to fly under the radar.

Im hoping to be on for the next little while. If not its good night for now.

Im curious what Hanas got here.

About Omtose I agree, apparently time is not excuse and I think they have not posted any thoughts at all.
OE hasn't either,but oh well

vote Omtose

Where are y'all anyway? Time's running

[Anomandaris]

I'll be on in a couple of hours to participate properly, just skimming now. Also interested in what Hanas is sniffing, must be reasonably certain of something to vote so quickly.

[Denul]

Path-Shaper, on 03 February 2016 - 04:10 AM, said:

Some clarification info for everybody:


Scenes will describe action with flowery language, but the underlying message will be battle information. Therefore, scenes should be read for info.

Victory Condition is simple : your side wins the battle.

Did someone mention we should NOT look into scenes?

[Merrid]

Denul, on 04 February 2016 - 09:56 AM, said:

Path-Shaper, on 03 February 2016 - 04:10 AM, said:

Some clarification info for everybody:


Scenes will describe action with flowery language, but the underlying message will be battle information. Therefore, scenes should be read for info.

Victory Condition is simple : your side wins the battle.

Did someone mention we should NOT look into scenes?

Yup.

Hanas, on 03 February 2016 - 05:31 PM, said:

Telas, on 03 February 2016 - 05:21 PM, said:

Actually, having reread the first scene (color, I know, color....) it's possible. Unknown banners when there's a clear war going on makes it somewhat plausible.

I'm sure the mods said somewhere that the scenes didn't give any hints.

[Aparal Forge]

Merrid, on 04 February 2016 - 09:09 AM, said:

Oi, I hurt your ego?

Trying to get under my skin, huh? Lovely. You seem quite insistent with this little statement, a classical case of Freudian projection? Could be, as you felt aroused enough to spend an hour of your, or actually your boss's, precious and expensive time pointing out my supposed ego hurt.

In reality, I don't think what I said was that hard to understand. A vote train got going, gaining steam pretty quickly, seemingly based solely on meat-and-potato reasoning. So I remarked that people should be aware of possible faction-related motives surrounding that train. Then you came along and objected to that, with nonsense reasons such as being afraid of a "no-lynch attitude" and a general game stalemate at a point in the game voting was actually done in rapid succession. When I pointed this nonsense out, you suddenly shut up and stopped answering.

If you wouldn't be so selective in your italicizing of my post, you would actually see that I was considering a much broader perspective of faction-based reasoning, but not excluding an independent faction (note, however, that contrary to how you like to make it seem I did not float that theory. In fact, I don't think that partial sentence had much influence on the proceedings at all.). At that point, I hadn't made up my mind yet, but I think I can safely admit that I was looking into Fanderay at that moment, like a lot of others were doing as well. However, I was also considering Ano at that moment, just not willing to jump blindly, without considering faction motives, on a train.

In conclusion, the main reason for me not liking you yesterday was because you jumped at me for merely suggesting to look at a lynch train with faction motives in mind.

[Denul]

Sleep deprived. Need coffee. Was there a reason for him to give us this misinformation?

[Emurlahn]

I don't think so

[Merrid]

Aparal Forge, on 04 February 2016 - 10:23 AM, said:

Merrid, on 04 February 2016 - 09:09 AM, said:

Oi, I hurt your ego?

Trying to get under my skin, huh? Lovely. You seem quite insistent with this little statement, a classical case of Freudian projection? Could be, as you felt aroused enough to spend an hour of your, or actually your boss's, precious and expensive time pointing out my supposed ego hurt.

In reality, I don't think what I said was that hard to understand. A vote train got going, gaining steam pretty quickly, seemingly based solely on meat-and-potato reasoning. So I remarked that people should be aware of possible faction-related motives surrounding that train. Then you came along and objected to that, with nonsense reasons such as being afraid of a "no-lynch attitude" and a general game stalemate at a point in the game voting was actually done in rapid succession. When I pointed this nonsense out, you suddenly shut up and stopped answering.

If you wouldn't be so selective in your italicizing of my post, you would actually see that I was considering a much broader perspective of faction-based reasoning, but not excluding an independent faction (note, however, that contrary to how you like to make it seem I did not float that theory. In fact, I don't think that partial sentence had much influence on the proceedings at all.). At that point, I hadn't made up my mind yet, but I think I can safely admit that I was looking into Fanderay at that moment, like a lot of others were doing as well. However, I was also considering Ano at that moment, just not willing to jump blindly, without considering faction motives, on a train.

In conclusion, the main reason for me not liking you yesterday was because you jumped at me for merely suggesting to look at a lynch train with faction motives in mind.

Okay, the hurting the ego was a low blow, maybe, but in reply to Merrid suddenly stopped responding to me (while they were still present on thread). I find that odd., which to me sounds a teensy tiny bit whiney since this was about theorycraft mostly. Anyway, sorry for that, let's move on.

Now, I guess we're coming from different sides but I do think there's not that much difference between our initial positions, just different emphasis. You said that people used M&P reasoning for branding scumminess in a game in which there is no scumminess, ergo they shouldn't. That's an entirely correct statement that I agree with. I also agree with you that this particular sentiment was used to pile votes onto Ano with little justification (which is why I took a step back and waited for his replies, which didn't satisfy me, so I put another vote on).

Where we varied, is my opinion of how jumpiness is sometimes a signal of a big role in faction games. I thought that was good enough to vote, you added the caveat that with faction politics in mind, people might want to be sure of alignment before voting. To that my response was that in the past this need for alignment indication has lead to stale games with very little interaction on thread, to which you responded that there was a lynch mentality, to which I failed to respond (and that's not a big loss, because frankly, it is theorycraft. We are now having that conversation and it essentially adds nothing to the game, now does it? Because I really, really like to stamp my opinion into people's brain, I will continue nonetheless ).

I stand by my statement though: many faction games have seen leaders that lie low and/or are extremely inactive on thread for fear of being lynched, underlings are passively waiting for a "go!" signal from someone they know, and when a leader finally gets pressure, everyone on that side suddenly jumps into defense, while every opponent takes notice and it is clear to all that there was just an "oh shit" moment. That the situation at hand was different at that particular time yesterday when there were first four votes in quick succession and then a couple of votes in another direction is somewhat irrelevant to that statement in the theorycraft about how games develop - and for all we know, the voting on Ano was an actual "oh shit" moment.

So, I guess it boils down to the fact that I am unhappy because I did take faction game strategy into account for my vote and reasoning - yet that features nowhere in your posts toward/about me, and you seem to have your feathers ruffled because you feel I posted generalist bullshit that didn't fit your description of the situation at hand.
We then dragged some other stuff in there that may or may not be relevant or misinterpreted (you saying I was deflecting, me seeing you as naming Fanderay a potential independent - while it might not be your intent, it might have reinforced the possibility in people's mind that there is/was an independent or give them convenient reasoning - it will be interesting to see how many who voted Fanderay actually mentioned that argument as part of their reasoning for voting) and we arrive where we are. Do we really need to pursue this further?

[Aparal Forge]

No, I don't really see the relevance in pursuing this any further at this point; I think we both spoke our minds and vented some of our frustrations, let's move on.

[Omtose]

Back at last.

I didn't drive by vote, I though KF had the right idea about Fanderay. I didn't give a reason as that would just be parroting KF's post

Hanas is who interests me. He intentionally gave wrong info about the scenes, and now wants us to follow him, with no valid or verifiable reason

[Hanas]

Denul, on 04 February 2016 - 10:24 AM, said:

Sleep deprived. Need coffee. Was there a reason for him to give us this misinformation?

Omtose, on 04 February 2016 - 12:00 PM, said:

Back at last.

I didn't drive by vote, I though KF had the right idea about Fanderay. I didn't give a reason as that would just be parroting KF's post

Hanas is who interests me. He intentionally gave wrong info about the scenes, and now wants us to follow him, with no valid or verifiable reason

A purely accidental misreading of a post, unfortunately.