Print

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

[Leafsnail]

Dariush' criticisms do have some truth in them, but the fact he took that attitude probably didn't help him look town.  I'll discuss the setup more after the game.

Leafsnail:  I barely considered it in passing.  It never came close to making it into the post.

Ok then.

Usually when asked about my suspicions, I give details about why I suspect them regardless of alignment in any Mafia game I play.

Sure, but you can give the names now and details later.  It doesn't take long.

I don't get the timing for your Dariush attack at all.  You asked him to sum up his cases (and in the same post openly wondered at why I'm attacking him) and then double attacked him before he had a chance to answer that question.  Why?  I wouldn't blame you for attacking the guy, but striking at him right then strikes me as extremely opportunistic.

[Toaster]

Leaf:  Missed this one.

Leafsnail:  What is your read on Tiruin?

[Leafsnail]

Oh right.  I meant to say his attack on Dariush paints him as scum.

[Tiruin]

Usually when asked about my suspicions, I give details about why I suspect them regardless of alignment in any Mafia game I play.

Sure, but you can give the names now and details later.  It doesn't take long.

For you, I guess, but it's different for me regardless.

I don't get the timing for your Dariush attack at all.  You asked him to sum up his cases (and in the same post openly wondered at why I'm attacking him) and then double attacked him before he had a chance to answer that question.  Why?  I wouldn't blame you for attacking the guy, but striking at him right then strikes me as extremely opportunistic.

The bolded part is because I wondered why you were attacking him based on his attacks (meaning how he tried to incite reactions from you and not exactly his lack of trying to respond) also I was checking his profile and noted down the times he was on. He didn't answer my two posts regarding him, and timezones mostly played a role in my lateness (Holidays -_-) - there are no extends or shortens, but he was online for that whole time.

Oh right.  I meant to say his attack on Dariush paints him as scum.

Explain. Also, does his flip affect any part of your reasoning?

[Leafsnail]

There was an implication of an accusation in that post but I forgot to actually include an explicit statement.  His flip has no part in the reasoning - I would not blame someone for attacking Dariush, the strange thing is the manner in which you did it.

Your posts were only three hours apart, and I think it's reasonable that he wouldn't've seen your question in that time (I sometimes leave Bay 12 open while doing something else, for instance).  In addition, since the scum can't do anything secretly it wouldn't really have mattered if you waited for his answer past the deadline.  So again the issue is you made a post in which you didn't particularly accuse Dariush and then a few hours later decided to double attack him without hearing the response.

[ToonyMan]

I have a few thoughts.

Tiruin and Toaster are both at least swordsmen (they both double attacked; Toaster on T2 and Tiruin on T3) so it's more dangerous to have them alive if they're traitors.

Jim hasn't been playing either so we can kill him as a secondary choice too, it's hard to read a player who can't really access the game.

[Toaster]

That's the same idea I gave Caz shit over earlier- trying to scumhunt by role, not by actions.


Also, you've conveniently named everyone but Leafsnail and yourself.

[Tiruin]

There was an implication of an accusation in that post but I forgot to actually include an explicit statement.  His flip has no part in the reasoning - I would not blame someone for attacking Dariush, the strange thing is the manner in which you did it.

Your posts were only three hours apart, and I think it's reasonable that he wouldn't've seen your question in that time (I sometimes leave Bay 12 open while doing something else, for instance).  In addition, since the scum can't do anything secretly it wouldn't really have mattered if you waited for his answer past the deadline.  So again the issue is you made a post in which you didn't particularly accuse Dariush and then a few hours later decided to double attack him without hearing the response.

Those posts were three hours apart, my other posts were longer than that - after poking him on it, he didn't reply to any one of them at all. Also what's with the bolded part? Nextly, I browsed over his posts and didn't like the way he presented information. It lacked motivation, seemingly aimed at pushing on the emotional side rather than the logical side. The manner in which I did it was to get rid of an uncertain variable, but now we know the result.

Tiruin and Toaster are both at least swordsmen (they both double attacked; Toaster on T2 and Tiruin on T3) so it's more dangerous to have them alive if they're traitors.

Jim hasn't been playing either so we can kill him as a secondary choice too, it's hard to read a player who can't really access the game.

Your opinion matters, but it won't do any good unless you try to enforce them. It is amusing though (Jim is busy IRL. Midterms. MIDTERMS! THEY ARE A TERROR UPON OUR LANDS! SMITE THEM! THEY HAVE MATH!), but why kill Jim, explicitly?

Also, why is the chance of attacking more, more dangerous than defending more, if I may ask you?

[ToonyMan]

That's the same idea I gave Caz shit over earlier- trying to scumhunt by role, not by actions.

I don't remember it being this specific though.

Also, you've conveniently named everyone but Leafsnail and yourself.

It's almost like I'm not a swordsman and I haven't seen Leafsnail double attack plus he's here.

Your opinion matters, but it won't do any good unless you try to enforce them. It is amusing though (Jim is busy IRL. Midterms. MIDTERMS! THEY ARE A TERROR UPON OUR LANDS! SMITE THEM! THEY HAVE MATH!), but why kill Jim, explicitly?

Because...Jim's not here?  I said in my prior post!  I can only make it more explicit by voicing these lines and linking them through Tindeck or something.

For enforcement I'm going to attack Tiruin since you so kindly asked, at the very least I want you two to have less health.  One of you may be a Swordsmaster so 2 points of injury sounds okay.

Also, why is the chance of attacking more, more dangerous than defending more, if I may ask you?

Traitors want to kill the Prince, guess what that involves.

[Tiruin]

Your opinion matters, but it won't do any good unless you try to enforce them. It is amusing though (Jim is busy IRL. Midterms. MIDTERMS! THEY ARE A TERROR UPON OUR LANDS! SMITE THEM! THEY HAVE MATH!), but why kill Jim, explicitly?

Because...Jim's not here?  I said in my prior post!  I can only make it more explicit by voicing these lines and linking them through Tindeck or something.

For enforcement I'm going to attack Tiruin since you so kindly asked, at the very least I want you two to have less health.  One of you may be a Swordsmaster so 2 points of injury sounds okay.

Are you blind, or do you read 'enforce' as 'ATTACK ME BECAUSE I'M YOUR SUSPECT!' other than trying to prove it by word, Sir Aggression?

Your words are as blind as your leads.

[ToonyMan]

I was reminded of an albeit more conditional advantage this brings to us as well:

In the event that only two people are left (Prince and Traitor or Conniving Heir), a Swordsman or Swordsmaster will win. Otherwise, the Prince wins only if he has more health than the other player.

This may not end up happening, but preventing a lose due to auto-winning of traitor Swordsman/Swordsmaster is also favorable.

Are you blind, or do you read 'enforce' as 'ATTACK ME BECAUSE I'M YOUR SUSPECT!' other than trying to prove it by word, Sir Aggression?
Your words are as blind as your leads.

Somebody's scared.

[ToonyMan]

I just noticed an error, in Reply #203 the last quote should be from Tiruin, not Toaster.  Weird.

[Tiruin]

So you attack me on grounds of what Meph said over anything else?

[Tiruin]

Heading off to sleep.


ToonyMan: Just let me remind you that I've warned you once about poor explanations and leaving context to be inferred by others - not explaining but waiting for others to ask, in other words.

Next, what are your reads on people and what are you doing to work on them.

Lastly, your only suspicion of me was technical details. Care to tell me why I was chosen for your assault over Toaster?

[Tiruin]

And in addition to that, tell me if anything you said here influences your decision, Toony.

Well, two loyal flips would have been extremely worrisome.  I meant the situation in the second quote, not the flip which you seem to be inferring incorrectly.

And how would 'worrisome' flip influence your play, scum?

Uh, traitor guards would outnumber loyal guards 2 to 1?  It would be reaching the point where the traitors could come out and win the ensuing battles with high probability.  Four traitors 2 loyals and the prince.  Unless the loyals had better roles we'd most likely lose right then.  The only saving grace we would have is if one or more of the traitors decided to stay "loyal" which would be pretty stupid.

Who is this 'we', along with whatever your reply would be.