Native:IronyOwl: Do you have nothing to say to my responses or have you just not had the chance to post?
The latter. Specifically, I felt your post warranted going back to double check some things, then I got distracted by ZU's interesting claim and things in general.
IronyOwl. That last post was a bit extreme, don't you think? Most of what was directed at Mr. D was you complaining about how he's complaining about how you're asking him all them questions making statements. Assuming. It's out of character for you to blow up so hard on someone for something so little and ultimately irrelevant. A few things stood out that make me think you're scum pressing for a mislynch.
Refusing to answer any questions is not an irrelevant thing. Shutting down because he's got three questions in the queue is not an irrelevant thing. Not having an answer to "What did you think I just said?" is not an irrelevant thing. If he's going to shut down at that level, he needs to snap out of it or hang.
But tell me, assuming he hadn't been lynched, how would you go about getting a read on him, remembering that refusing to explain himself is petty and irrelevant?
I never said that refusing to answer any questions was irrelevant. I said that his complaining about the number of questions you were asking was irrelevant. I thought that was pretty clear seeing how I stated it clearly in the bolded portions of my post above.
The number of questions was directly related to his delay and then refusal to answer them, which makes them most decidedly relevant. I'd argue against "most," but much of my post was focused on the number because the number was much of his excuse.
Also, if that was what you were talking about me "blowing up" about, what made you say it was the number I was raging at and not the other stuff I mentioned? Or was any focus on the number noteworthy, regardless of what else I was going on about at the same time?
Keeping in mind that his complaints about the number of questions you were asking him is ultimately irrelevant, I would attempt to get a read on him the usual way - asking him question, reading into his actions, and pressing him on any scumtells he might have let slip.
And when he delayed answering them until "later" because there's fifty of them (AKA two)?
Even if it wasn't intended to be a lynchvote, that's what it turned in to. You really think that everyone's just going to ignore what you're saying to Mr. D because it's only directed at him? When you're making a case against someone like you were against Mr. D you're convincing other to vote him, regardless of whether or not you're actually addressing anyone else.
So you think I was trying to mislynch him because my attempts at convincing everyone else were shit, and you think I was trying to convince everyone else in the first place because I was talking. Also peer pressure.
Right.
It turns into buffering when more than half of your post consists of exaggerated ranting about how he's doing something wrong. You don't think something less than the eighteen lines would have sufficed? What did you really accomplish by padding your post with that drawn out rant?
I really don't. We're talking about someone who could not answer the question "What did you think I was asking when you gave me this answer?", who freaked out about having three questions to him, and whose excuse for not answering them was "That's not something I made a plan about beforehand." That is not someone you can give a quick explanation to and expect anything except further excuses and misunderstandings from.
If you thought otherwise, why didn't you deal with it? Did you not think it was a big enough problem to bother with, or something else?
If by "openly defending his handling of the situation" you mean "nearly all of his tells are synonymous with newbtowntells and you're approaching that like you're after an easy lynch" then yes. I never said that his complaining was admirable or acceptable, but that it should have had a much lighter impact on his alignment than you seemed to believe it had.
By "openly defending his handling of the situation" I mean claiming he wasn't doing anything wrong except that he "hasn't answered your questions in a manner that meets your standards." That's about as diplomatic a way as you can get of saying "refused to answer anything except the one thing he misunderstood and vomited the wrong useless answer at." The only time you've actually acknowledged he did
anything wrong was when you claim "not thinking about his answers"- ie completely and uselessly misinterpreting the only question he actually
did answer, the first time- qualified as "poor play," which you only mention as an excuse for why it's not scumminess.
In short, you're
utterly belittling his issues, and even then only when you can't ignore them. If that doesn't qualify as defending his behavior, I'm not sure what would.
Dariush:Yes, of course, bandwagon me with zero arguments. Unless you count OMGUS, that is. OMGUS brings the total up to a whopping one argument. Yeah, there's no doubt at all now that you're scum, thanks for claryfing that.
This is a Jackass Maneuver. You're being a Jackass.
The way to tell is when you respond to someone's careful dissection of your points with a sweeping dismissal of them on some flimsy grounds, usually involving some variant of the phrase "there's no point [EXPECTED_ACTION] because [CHEAP_EXCUSE]." ZU's point on your flagrant contradiction is entirely valid,
and I don't even remember yours on why ZU's scum, so and I looked up your reason for ZU being scum and he's already answered it without any objections from you.
Being a Jackass is useless. Please stop being a Jackass and actually play the game, preferably by explaining everything with quotes.
Hapah:Everyone: At a glance, ZU would have very little to gain from claiming either flavor (SK or Scum) of NK. He had to know it would invite scrutiny, and if he was an SK would probably want the town to operate under the assumption that the game is within normal bounds. I just can't see a solid reason to claim that kill like that unless you legitimately want to warn the town that the setup isn't typical. Anyone have thoughts on this?
This is essentially my feeling- he just wouldn't have a good reason to fakeclaim this.
The only exception I can think of would be if he was paranoid about being caught in fakeclaim for what his N1 action really was, but that still seems excessively panicky. I guess if we start getting routine kills and haven't killed Dariush already we could take another look at him, but for now I'm content to label him town.
zombie urist:Well, I didn't think he had good scumhunting questions. And if you read through his posts and didn't think he was scummy, then you're wrong. 
Some examples would be nice, however.
Author
Topic: Roguelike Mafia 5 - That's the last of them. [Game Over!] (Read 63530 times)