I'd recommend for people to go back through that argument between Absol and vegitalian again. I think it is very important to do so.
I'll be honest that I skimmed much of it as it was going down. Long posts are long. But I went back and ISO'd both of them. My quick thoughts before I get to the heart of the ISO:
Vegi ~ You maintained your cool. Though you were intentionally pushing Absol's buttons on more than one occasion to get him to respond emotionally. You didn't insult him, but definitely got under his skin effectively. I'm not sure how I feel about that. Your posts were logical and thought out (minus a triplicate with bad formatting). You responded to Absol and were clear in your wording.
Absol ~ You are extremely aggressive. This is not a bad thing. Sometimes people need a lot of pressure before they crack. But, you are also very emotional and argumentative for no good reason. Vegi's analysis of your post was 1) His interpretation of your actions to Vablakes, and 2) Quite accurate based on the wording you provided in your post. I've read those posts. You claiming he is putting words in your mouth is false. By saying that the attack on Vablakes was unfounded, you
are defending him whether you planned for it or not.
Lets take me for example, since we both are in a similar boat. I am claimed by Vegi to have "defended" Vablakes. The thing I said about him before Vegi's post was "I am leaning newbtown." This is not a defense in any sense of the word. This is my gut feeling based on the way Vablakes posted, what he said, and his reasoning. But, in my read of "newbtown" I "defended him," even though no such post existed. Do you see me all up in arms about Vablakes? No. I find his post to be perfectly acceptable and even quite useful, even though he
drastically overstates my opinion of Vablakes. Analysis of links can be an adequate adjunct to other scumtells in finding wolves. However your explosive response to Vegi's post was:
- Unnecessary (since his analysis was correct)
- Unnecessary (since he already stated that it was his interpretation of other's posts)
- Unnecessary (since it could have been logged for later if you really felt that he was misrepresenting your case, a GREAT read for later on in the game, when you can implicate more than one scum based on those type of misrepresentations)
- Unnecessary (since your response could have been condensed, without the emotion/vitriol, and more analytic).
Now, to the full ISO (I wish there was a way to condense this to make it more easily read... :frown: )
Summarization of key points in normal text, "quotes in quotation marks," (my thoughts in parenthesis)
Vegi
253 Sits on fence while posting helful hints, Says posting often helps wolves too, not just town
283 Votes daiz (RVS?) and "defends" me
375 pokes pf5, talks about tables' thoughts. claims townie
384 posts "linking post," (Doesn't uncover roles, but alignment rather) makes a few assumptions, does not link posts
387 justification for absol read
391 "my impressions from posts" subtle almost threat, justification has "ideas that aren't really accurate
411 goes at absol directly, previous post explanation. is not emotional, but is poking absol. smug and confident.
419 again justification, takes responsibility. tldr to end it
423 takes pressure very well. unvotes his rvs, doesn't vote. (null read). is pointing out his bandwagon
427 smug again, is careful to not claim absol wolf in omgus, throws a little wifom
430 explanation/fence sit
434 wifoms a bit
439 good response
444 pokes that absol is tunneling
448 fence sits, doesn't think his wagon has wolves on it.
450 again points the tunneling. justification
453 tunnel more absol
455 pokes more, still un-pressured
517 response to absol pretty truthful and logical
Absoltrainer
215 Defends Vablakes, goes after HD for adequate reasons
309 tries to find inconsistency in vablakes
320 goes for vablakes, voting for him.
388 jumps down vegi's throat for the 'defends vablakes' notation
405 very aggressive to vegi, semi isos him
407 calls out the threat
416 again calls the support "false" very aggressive/emotional
424 calls the bandwagon analysis distraction
429 misconstrues the term initial post, (due to non-existent definition from Vegi)
433 doesn't fear wolves uses linking logic to go after vablakes calls "scummy=wolf automatically"
436 says linking logic (that vegi posts) means we should go after vablakes if vegi flips wolf
443 says that vegi needs to focus on today, calls vegi wolf, doesn't fear wolves
446 still very aggressive
449 AGAIN with linking logic. Absol, STAHP. claims vegi=smear claims vegi was gonna use vablakes scumbus to go after him. (there were 4 other people with vablakes)
451 summarizes actions
454 military analogy because. claims victory
456 come at me bro (no link necessary)
458 still aggressive, claims vegi lies, smears, and takes out of context, says this was not useless, but fun
461 starts to come down off the high. but claims he hasn't stopped anyone from talking
463 again says its fun to troll, says he will only target new scum targets after one is dead (this is not an RPG, you cannot deal with DPS like that)
465 "I never said that."
468 calls out the ~insults to him, blames other people for not talking when he was
470 "hardly arguing for the sake of arguing" (thats what it seems like to me...)
480 legit discussion with kayle about voting record and askes questions
487 defines his strategy.(middle of post) very keen on not having words put in his mouth. calls out kayle on vote-swapping, claims it not his fault that people stopped talking, doesn't fear wolves
492 read my posts pl0x. says he has multiple wolves in his pocket, says he is not pressured
Now, what do I gain from these ISOs?
1) Vegi made a post that could be helpful down the road. He made some assumptions/analysis of players posts and stated his thoughts on their posts, how they were "aligning themselves" to other players.
2) Absol completely over-reacts due to his placement. I feel that Vegi was 1) honest in his interpretation and 2) correct in his placment of Absol in the "defends Vablakes, then votes for him" notation. This is logical and reasonable. Absol uses this as leverage to claim, sequentially that Vegi is putting words in his mouth and a wolf.
3) Vegi, completely unperturbed, pokes Absol numerous times about his posts.
4) Absol continues his aggressive posting against vegitalian, almost blind at this point to any other issue.
5) Conversation in the thread stops while this argument goes down.
6) Absol is called a troll-child and is told to back off. (coincidentally he admits to having fun trolling vegitalian).
7) The heat comes down and we all realize that about a ~ day was wasted on that superficially-pointless argument.
8) Absol is accused of stopping conversation, which he denies. However both he and Vegi DID stop conversation on other topics while the argument was under way.
9) We are now back to logical examination, and I feel that we should all go back and conduct our own ISO's on the situation to garner a better understanding of the argument and the key players.
Thus: Vegitalian.
1) If you are going to poke for responses, you need to get some concrete data out of them. Intentionally riling Absoltrainer's emotions for no reason is bad.
2) Your argument is a day that cannot be recovered. Thus, make the best of it and do some ISOs of players responding to the argument and give us some reads.
3) Why the threat of "Its probably not a good idea?"
4) You throw WIFOM into the argument, stating all these hypothetical scenarios where players could or could not be wolves. That itself at this point is WIFOM/scummy, along with some of your other statements "posting a lot helps the wolves," etc.
5) You need to post some reads.
Absol.
1) Why were you so vehement about denying something that 1) Was Vegi's opinion of the post, and 2) Something that was accurate?
2) Why all of the aggression and emotion?
3) You need to go back and ISO player's responses to your argument and post your reads.
4) Your continued claims of "I'm not afraid of wolves" is interesting, in a vein similar to Crimsonsky. What is its purpose in your posts at all, other than to claim you cannot die to wolves OR are a wolf? If you had a role that nullified wolf kills against you, you shouldn't have said anything. If the wolves believe your claim then they now won't "waste" a role that they might have had you not said anything.
At this point, I'm going to lay this information out there and let you all read it for yourself. Make your own analysis, don't just trust mine.
I'm glad I did.