Print

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

[ToonyMan]

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

No.  That is contemporary evidence.  It was a toss-up between Toaster and you because of your danger to the Prince at this point and you happened to ask what I was planning on doing in a bit anyway (unless something else ended up happening and I went with my secondary thought).  IronyOwl should see the benefit in at least lowering both of your health.

I will say your reaction to my attack is a bit overblown, you have defends right?  I think you're overreacting to my statement because you're a traitor.


PPE:

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.

How is this not understood to you?  I'll clear up anything you don't understand.  You only seem to be rejecting me myself right now, not what I'm saying.

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

Okay:
Toaster and Tiruin need to go down health, I have enforced what I can now.
Jim isn't playing so he's dangerous for being vague in his alignment.
Leafsnail hasn't really had any problems but being wrong about Dariush (can't stab him for that because that makes me a hypocrite).

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

Already have champ.  Thanks for the questions.


---Oh we aren't done yet!
PPEX2:

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.

The Loyals?  I even said them right before in the same sentence you bolded.  I feel like you're grasping at straws here for not really any particular reason besides being defensive scum.  I will say I did not read this small paragraph of mine since this turn started (until now), so I would say the influence is a bit weak because it wasn't on my mind at all.  I don't really see how it's even relevant to my logic.

[Tiruin]

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

No.  That is contemporary evidence.  It was a toss-up between Toaster and you because of your danger to the Prince at this point and you happened to ask what I was planning on doing in a bit anyway (unless something else ended up happening and I went with my secondary thought).  IronyOwl should see the benefit in at least lowering both of your health.

I will say your reaction to my attack is a bit overblown, you have defends right?  I think you're overreacting to my statement because you're a traitor.

What did you hope to gain via attacking me anyway? How am I overreacting, or for lack of a better word, how is that overblown?

Outline your reasoning.

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

Okay:
Toaster and Tiruin need to go down health, I have enforced what I can now.

Dude. Look at it this way. Actions do speak louder than words, however we need words to explain those actions. You just said it blatantly, and plaintively.

Enforced, how? Attacking me because I am a claimed sword-user? You didn't say anything which differentiates your primary targets, nor why you chose me [Either that, or you're just attacking me because I said 'enforce'.]

Now I'll use simple words.

Why attack me?

[Jim Groovester]

Jim: Suspects and current reads on people?

ToonyMan and Leafsnail, mostly because of gut feeling. I feel like both of them have been going after targets of opportunity. ToonyMan more conspicuously than Leafsnail.

ToonyMan attacking people for their role is stupid and scummy.

I've got nothing more specific on Leafsnail than the gut feeling.

Also, please define OMGUS in this context. The newbie has a different definition than yours, it seems.

WHO CARES

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.

I do not approve for obvious reasons.

Non-obviously, you're being lazy with your choice of targets.

How is it that it's Turn 4 and your suspects are Tiruin and Toaster by role and me by Lynch All Lurkers?

I will say your reaction to my attack is a bit overblown, you have defends right?  I think you're overreacting to my statement because you're a traitor.

How is it overblown? You attacking someone isn't a trivial action just because the player can defend themselves.

[Leafsnail]

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.

Ok.  So why not give him some kind of warning or ultimatum in the post that preceded the attack?  If you were already pushed to breaking point I don't see why you wouldn't.

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.

It was to answer Toaster's question.  And again the problem is why then and not before.

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.

Why not block the attack?

[Tiruin]

Leafsnail

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.

Ok.  So why not give him some kind of warning or ultimatum in the post that preceded the attack?  If you were already pushed to breaking point I don't see why you wouldn't.

Other than draw the confusion out for another turn, I decided to use what tools I had in my hands to fix the effort - Dariush somehow passed whereas he could've defended himself otherwise and I was still, and still am busy.

This still sounds like you were being affected by his flip though you claim different. Why? What impression are you acting upon?

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.

It was to answer Toaster's question.  And again the problem is why then and not before.

In addition to what I said above regarding time, timezones and posting time, I presumed that Dariush was online [and at the current time of his post, was on his available time in which he can post, taking a peek into profile stats].

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.

Why not block the attack?

Why should I? Why are you interested whether I will defend myself or not? If I did one or the other, can you explain your state of reasoning?

[ToonyMan]

Wow this is stupid.

@Tiruin:
I already addressed everything you ask here in the previous posts, so you really have nothing to say.  To summarize as concisely as possible with no questions of doubt: I want the swordsmen to have less hitpoints.  The fact you're being scummy helps.

@Jim:
How can the player who hasn't done anything this game but not-post and have gut feelings call someone lazy?  You're being a hypocrite.

How is it overblown? You attacking someone isn't a trivial action just because the player can defend themselves.

*Slants head lazily over newest lines of text*

Why should I? Why are you interested whether I will defend myself or not? If I did one or the other, can you explain your state of reasoning?

@IronyOwl:
Where are you?

[Tiruin]

*sigh*

Five guardsmen left. Include the Prince, we have six people.

ToonyMan

@Tiruin:
I already addressed everything you ask here in the previous posts, so you really have nothing to say.  To summarize as concisely as possible with no questions of doubt: I want the swordsmen to have less hitpoints.  The fact you're being scummy helps.

Prove. Via. Quotes. Or. Links.

I ask you to prove it, and yet you fall back on "I addressed it all." Do you know why I'm still asking? Because you didn't.

Yeah, to think the fact that claimed sword-users should have less hitpoints is truly deviating from what you said..."Why do you want them to have less hitpoints" > "Points to what Meph said". When asked if you're using what Meph said into your reasoning, I get a "Nope." If you aren't using your tongue to derive solutions from roles, then what. A lowered hitpoint count, for what, exactly.

IronyOwl should see the benefit in at least lowering both of your health.

What in the world. Tell me, from a Loyalist viewpoint; then tell me, from a Traitor viewpoint, how this would be beneficial to your case given the deathcount recently - related to what we have seen. You seem to be assuming that either one or the other, because of contending roles per faction?

Do you have any basis to prove that, if I am right in my guess?

To sum up your case:

Wow this is stupid.

You ignore mostly everything I asked you here in favor of "I want the swordsmen to have less hitpoints.  The fact you're being scummy helps." < You fail to deliver proof of my alluded scumminess but give your blatant opinion. We are claimed users of the sword - who is to say otherwise?

And just because I wield a damn sword.

You're acting on possibility and facts from hammerspace.

You have one more post to explain your scummy and irrational antics. Especially from the fact that you're using the power of inferring yet again with your snide remark to Jim.

Explain. In detail.

Explain. On reasoning.

Explain. Why you think people with swords are to have lesser hitpoints than everyone else - even those who have unclaimed their roles yet. Explain why you goad me on with the probable defense of myself, as either I suspect a crossbowman's taunt, or just stupidity rising from a desperate traitor.

Please for the love of my blood pressure (and if not, for my general health), Explain.

My fatigue IRL isn't helping, and your stubbornness is driving it off course.

@IronyOwl:
Where are you?

Why are you clamoring for the Prince's attention? Add this to your list of questions-to-be-answered.



Jim

Also, please define OMGUS in this context. The newbie has a different definition than yours, it seems.

WHO CARES

I DO. THIS IS WHY I'M ASKING YOU, AS A NEWBIE PLAYER TO A VETERAN. IT DOESN'T HURT TO TYPE A FEW WORDS, RIGHT?

Anyway, why a gut feeling on Leafsnail?

[Leafsnail]

Other than draw the confusion out for another turn, I decided to use what tools I had in my hands to fix the effort - Dariush somehow passed whereas he could've defended himself otherwise and I was still, and still am busy.

Doesn't really answer the question.

This still sounds like you were being affected by his flip though you claim different. Why? What impression are you acting upon?

This has nothing to do with his flip.

In addition to what I said above regarding time, timezones and posting time, I presumed that Dariush was online [and at the current time of his post, was on his available time in which he can post, taking a peek into profile stats].

Ok?  Doesn't mean he'd definitely post in the usual time he does

Why should I? Why are you interested whether I will defend myself or not? If I did one or the other, can you explain your state of reasoning?

No I'm not going to tell you how to act like a townie.  I want you to give me an honest answer, not try to work out the answer I'd approve of.

[Jim Groovester]

@Jim:
How can the player who hasn't done anything this game but not-post and have gut feelings call someone lazy?  You're being a hypocrite.

Boo hoo.

Hypocrisy isn't a scumtell.

How is it overblown? You attacking someone isn't a trivial action just because the player can defend themselves.

*Slants head lazily over newest lines of text*

Why should I? Why are you interested whether I will defend myself or not? If I did one or the other, can you explain your state of reasoning?

This doesn't explain jack shit.

I continue to fail to understand your argument beyond that Tiruin as a Swordsmaster should have less hit points, which is bullshit.

I DO. THIS IS WHY I'M ASKING YOU, AS A NEWBIE PLAYER TO A VETERAN. IT DOESN'T HURT TO TYPE A FEW WORDS, RIGHT?

You do, but I don't. I think this is pointless.

Anyway, why a gut feeling on Leafsnail?

I feel like he's been preying expertly on the mistakes of others. I.E., he's attacking people not because he feels they're traitors but because he can get them eliminated.

Leafsnail, can you explain the current gist of your discussion with Tiruin?

I'd ask Tiruin, but I don't trust that I could get something comprehensible.

[Leafsnail]

As for suspicions, I'm curious on why Leafsnail is attacking Dariush over non-substance posts. Though, Dar does sound like he's tumbling over himself on allegories and hypothetical questions, including his...attacks on Leafsnail for presumed lying. And then we talk into the territory of obscured grammar which holds no land for anyone yet it seems like his very weapon.

[...]

Dariush: Can ye sum up your case on your target.

Content on Dariush and my case against him, not particularly damning one way or the other.  Coupled with a not overtly aggressive or threatening question directed towards Dariush.

3 hours and zero posts by Dariush later:

Also, it seems like Dariush is being evasive - not answering...

...

I slice Dariush with my sword and hit Dariush again with my pommel!

To stop this madness.

Tiruin decides that his fairly softball question had a three hour time limit, and that Dariush is now definitely a traitor for exceeding said unspoken time limit.  It's a really odd 180 turn that I can't explain from the mindset of someone looking for scum.

Later in #202, he comes up with other reasons, but then the question becomes why he didn't present those while making the attacks.

I'd prefer Tiruin explains in his own words why he isn't defending from the attack before I expand on why I've asked that question.

[Tiruin]

Why should I? Why are you interested whether I will defend myself or not? If I did one or the other, can you explain your state of reasoning?

No I'm not going to tell you how to act like a townie.  I want you to give me an honest answer, not try to work out the answer I'd approve of.

I never asked you anything along those lines - I asked you, why in your eyes, should I defend myself. Why are you evading my question and imposing an assumption of your own, and why are you thinking that my answers are for approval from you lot, and not of my own volition?

It's pretty obvious that I already stated my stand on not defending myself when I can use my sword instead. I explained it in a post to IronyOwl, though I should've linked it in the first place, now that I see how you're approaching this.

Basically, I'd rely on my sword more than my hypothetical shield (I mean, swordsmen in this presumed era usually had bucklers, but that's verging from the point ). My attacker can either be a Crossbowman, an unclaimed sword-user, or a guard//shieldman, so thus I say henceforth why I'd rather not defend my own body.

Tiruin decides that his fairly softball question had a three hour time limit, and that Dariush is now definitely a traitor for exceeding said unspoken time limit.  It's a really odd 180 turn that I can't explain from the mindset of someone looking for scum.

Later in #202, he comes up with other reasons, but then the question becomes why he didn't present those while making the attacks.

I'd prefer Tiruin explains in his own words why he isn't defending from the attack before I expand on why I've asked that question.

Ohohoho, no, sire.

Turns = actions. I wanted to get rid of my doubts on Dariush, I have other reasons but they're all IRL hence me not mentioning them at all. He could've done something with his actions in that phase - he did post afterwards - but he didn't, so what are you trying to get at? You say you're alright with my attack, but not the timing. Then you infer that I did a softball question which relates to the attack, and not the timing. What is your reasoning behind that, and did you look at my posts addressing Dariush in the first place?

I see you're looking at it from another viewpoint where I am, the lack of his post. What do you think about it, may I ask? And what do you think about my attack on Dariush - as compared to the rest who have struck at him?

[IronyOwl]

I'm forced to admit that this is not the activity level of a Prince who really doesn't want to get stabbed.


Tiruin:

I'll answer this and any other questions directed to me later on because busy IRL. Sorry. Popping in to ask current eye-catching questions though.

I don't get why you'd do it this way round.  Surely it only takes a couple of minutes to post  a few names in response to someone bolding your name while it takes longer to read entire posts and ask questions about them.

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

The bolded part really makes this look suspiciously defensive. Like "I did that because of X, but that doesn't have anything to do with my alignment!!!"

My attacker can either be a Crossbowman, an unclaimed sword-user, or a guard//shieldman, so thus I say henceforth why I'd rather not defend my own body.

Also, you're saying you refuse to defend yourself because it's physically possible your attacker is a crossbowmen or swordsman?


Toony:

Ergo, your only possibly motive for "waiting on Deathsword's flip" was to see if it was time to strike yet. Am I missing anything?

I said "we're", not "I am".  As I mentioned before I wanted to know how "we're doing" as in the situation.  You also framed your last sentence with the loyal guards and traitors to be favorable to your argument when it is in fact incorrect.  I don't want that to happen, people might not find that understandable which is clear because I had to actually explain it per request.

But you said "we're" in direct response to a question regarding why you were waiting for Deathsword's flip. If that wasn't what you were getting at, where did it come from at all?

[Tiruin]

Irony

The bolded part really makes this look suspiciously defensive. Like "I did that because of X, but that doesn't have anything to do with my alignment!!!"

I did what because of X? What's X?

No, I'm stating why it takes me time to answer stuff regarding suspicions, not because of anything: role or alignment. It's part of my playstyle.

Copious amounts of detail.

Also, you're saying you refuse to defend yourself because it's physically possible your attacker is a crossbowmen or swordsman?

I'm saying he can be anything. Assumptions aside, I'd rather rely on something I know can work - my attacks.

[ToonyMan]

I continue to fail to understand your argument beyond that Tiruin as a Swordsmaster should have less hit points, which is bullshit.

Swordsmen/master can attack twice and also overpower the Prince in case they're the last two left (the Prince would hopefully have more hp at that point and win otherwise), there you go.  I could add how he's been acting since my attack and Dariush's comment last turn before dying and aaaaall the things I've constantly been explaining but wait I just did.  Mind you this is a rerere-rehash of what I've been saying this turn so honestly I'm staring at the gun on my table at this point.

Toony:

Ergo, your only possibly motive for "waiting on Deathsword's flip" was to see if it was time to strike yet. Am I missing anything?

I said "we're", not "I am".  As I mentioned before I wanted to know how "we're doing" as in the situation.  You also framed your last sentence with the loyal guards and traitors to be favorable to your argument when it is in fact incorrect.  I don't want that to happen, people might not find that understandable which is clear because I had to actually explain it per request.

But you said "we're" in direct response to a question regarding why you were waiting for Deathsword's flip. If that wasn't what you were getting at, where did it come from at all?

Uuuh I have no idea what you're trying to argue anymore.

@Tiruin:
Fuck me, you definitely win the "I don't want to respond to this shit" medal.  Please simplify your questions to at most three easy to understand arguments I can answer.  If mafia was about saying more than your competitor than you would win every time dude.

[Leafsnail]

I never asked you anything along those lines - I asked you, why in your eyes, should I defend myself. Why are you evading my question and imposing an assumption of your own, and why are you thinking that my answers are for approval from you lot, and not of my own volition?

It's pretty obvious that I already stated my stand on not defending myself when I can use my sword instead. I explained it in a post to IronyOwl, though I should've linked it in the first place, now that I see how you're approaching this.

Basically, I'd rely on my sword more than my hypothetical shield (I mean, swordsmen in this presumed era usually had bucklers, but that's verging from the point ). My attacker can either be a Crossbowman, an unclaimed sword-user, or a guard//shieldman, so thus I say henceforth why I'd rather not defend my own body.

So it comes down to saving your attacks up for later, right?

Ohohoho, no, sire.

Turns = actions. I wanted to get rid of my doubts on Dariush, I have other reasons but they're all IRL hence me not mentioning them at all. He could've done something with his actions in that phase - he did post afterwards - but he didn't, so what are you trying to get at? You say you're alright with my attack, but not the timing. Then you infer that I did a softball question which relates to the attack, and not the timing. What is your reasoning behind that, and did you look at my posts addressing Dariush in the first place?

I see you're looking at it from another viewpoint where I am, the lack of his post. What do you think about it, may I ask? And what do you think about my attack on Dariush - as compared to the rest who have struck at him?

Whether Dariush actioned or not is irrelevant.  The issue is you suddenly lashing out at Dariush even though previously you didn't have him down as scum, and that there was no apparent reason for this change other than "The question I asked him in my last post had an invisible time limit".  If you'd said in the first of those two posts something to the effect of "Answer me now or I'll attack, Dariush" I could believe the time delay would cause the attack, but as it is I can't see that as an excuse.

I've explained what I think about your attack on Dariush.  The other attacks on him do not have similar circumstances surrounding them so I do not regard them as suspicious.