Print

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

[Tiruin]

NQT

TolyK hasn't posted in ages. Lurking is bad for everyone in the game. I suggest policy-lynch unless a replacement is found soon. What do people think?

I say nay, really.

This game has no quicktopic, no night phase, nothing that scum could hide other than their subtle [IF PM_MOD: YES, THEN KILL].

Which means lurking is...seemingly not much of a scumtell (in comparison with other games) here, but it speaks of the person. Extremely lazy. Probable.

Or if that person was scum, then the player really has the balls to waste time. That doesn't speak well of them, and that is why I say nay - nobody in their right minds would do such a thing just to...fulfill their wincon via time management.

Why did you unvote?

Man I don't even know anymore. Unvote.

Reread pending.

Same for you. Why did you unvote?


Edos

I see the DS and NQT situation in two ways. We know Nerjin, Norris, and DS were all voting NQT.
To me, it either means they're both cleared because scum just wouldn't feel right doing something like that, or they're both scum because they did it for the lulz.
I guess a third option might be that one is maf, but not the other, but I don't think so.

For me, the purpose of a NQT or DS lynch would be an information lynch: Is the other clear?
We're at such an advantage that we could almost PoE it out until we lynch both scum.

Woah there, sir. Information lynch?!

...Come to think of it, I think you're seeing it as from the lack of an NK - the danger of an NK - that the lynch replaces judgement on finding people's roles...Meaning, it acts as an inspect, eh?

Thing is, scumhunting. What are your reads on everyone?

PPE: Dar

[Teneb]

I've been fighting my connection for these past few days. I'll try to get a post through later today when I get hone.

[notquitethere]

Tiruin

I say nay, really.

This game has no quicktopic, no night phase, nothing that scum could hide other than their subtle [IF PM_MOD: YES, THEN KILL].

Which means lurking is...seemingly not much of a scumtell (in comparison with other games) here, but it speaks of the person. Extremely lazy. Probable.

Or if that person was scum, then the player really has the balls to waste time. That doesn't speak well of them, and that is why I say nay - nobody in their right minds would do such a thing just to...fulfil their wincon via time management.

Hmm... but the scum have an incentive to let the game drift to a deadline with a tie between lynch targets; staying quiet and then evening the vote before the deadline if necessary. So lurking is moderately scummy.

Why did you unvote?

To policy-vote TolyK, like I suggested and did. I still think DS is pretty scummy, but we can't lynch all scummy players at the same time.

[TolyK]

I'm guessing my post didn't post. As soon as I finish the crap I gotta do today I'll re-write-it-up.

[obolisk0430]

You know, tiruin, asking who someone thinks the masons are is a great idea.  In fact, why don't we just ask the masons to reveal themselves and hand the mafia the game? [/sarcasm]

[Tiruin]

You know, tiruin, asking who someone thinks the masons are is a great idea.  In fact, why don't we just ask the masons to reveal themselves and hand the mafia the game? [/sarcasm]

I don't get your grammar, nor do I get what your point here is...

But you do raise a good situation. What would you do, hypothetically as scum, if someone revealed the four names?

[Captain Ford]

Dariush:

If a claim results in the death of a mafia member, then regardless of what that claim was or who made it, it was beneficial to the town.

Claiming mason is a null-tell, as you've previously said. Quite surprisingly (coming from you), it is true. No scum would be fooled by this because they don't know who's town and who's mason, but masons would be immediatly suspicious because they know you're lying (if you're lying).

Maybe, but a claim is never made in a vacuum. It might not be the person who made the claim who ends up being targeted for the kill. Claiming mason may be part of a gambit to create a false impression of connections to other players, based on how they react to it.

A claim is a tool, and only one of many. Its effectiveness depends on the one using it and the context in which it is made.[/pointingouttheobvious]

Spoiler: OOC (click to show/hide)

...man, it would have been great if I could have articulated it that way to begin with.

Also, what Tiruin said about the stupidity of the whole 'helping scum' thing. You've got to have some seriously inflated opinion of yourself if you think you can sway some scum's opinion about who is mason and who is not merely by giving your reads on people.

Point taken.


Tiruin:

I'm going to be excluding information that could help scum find masons.

How does that relate in giving reads on people, hmm? Its pretty obvious you aren't a mason by your earlier posts preceding this, including what you just gave right there - fear of helping scum finding masons. Captain Ford, what could you give, other than your opinion, that would help scum anyway?

Okay, I think "information that could help scum find masons" was too vague. I only withheld my opinions about who I thought was a mason. And honestly, the only person I suspect of being a mason is toaster, but then I also suspect him of being scum. I think he's on a team. I just don't know which one.

...and on rereading, Toaster's looking scummier than I previously thought. (I'll address him directly in a moment)

Who do you think are masons, and who do you think are scum?

Finding the masons isn't my concern, and it shouldn't be yours either, Tiruin. So why are you so interested in finding them?

This is completely different from asking for my reads. You explicitly want me to help you find masons. Why?

Next, "I'm giving Tiruin a wide berth because I don't want to end up in another quote war that goes nowhere." > I'm assuming you're judging this by the BM.

That makes no sense [see: metatell]. You fear something may happen because of what you perceive happened before? Hah. Very funny. This seems sincere by how you appear to judge people, but this is a mistake you're doing that is apparent. By what you say, this is either confusion of wording, or obfuscation of written words made by me.

Pardon me, but in the world I live in, past experience is the best indicator of future events. Out of two games I've played with you, I've gotten tangled up in language confusion both times. 2 out of 2. In other words, 100% of the time. Are you really trying to tell me I'm being irrational?

And I've been giving you a wide berth, not ignoring you. You kind of seem to be your own worst enemy.

Tiruin, you've been fishing for people's alliances ever since the game began. Why? How does that help you? How does it help the town win?

Why do you want to know who I think the masons are? What would that information tell you?

Edosurist: What would we gain by lynching NQT that would make lynching a townie worthwhile? What specifically would make it more valuable than mislynching someone else?

Phantom: I realize you're requesting replacement, but could you fully explain your case against Edosurist? And maybe address this, which expands on his OMGUS statement and you appear to have missed.

How is Phantom suspicious because of that? And that note on Edos, you're relating him specifically to a townie, or am I misreading what you mean there?

I suppose my reads have changed a bit since I caught up.
Edosurist: His statement when he voted NQT was strange. I still read him as slightly town. But slightly dumber town.
Phantom: I'm reading him as slightly scummier. His vote seemed lazy because he missed pieces of the discussion when he voted. But that could simply be from lack of time.
     Something about the way he played the Q&A game is pinging my scumdar for some reason.
Tolyk: Oh hey, he's posted finally. Apparently one of his posts got eaten. Still, one missing post in that timespan still makes him very lurky.
Toaster: Aloof, friendly, bandwagon vote (with a good reason), playing up reason for bandwagon. Everyone else I'm uncertain about, but with toaster, it all just clicks.

Spoiler: OOC (click to show/hide)

Err ... I said I was busy, not sick.

Eheh...well, that still stands. Get well from being busy!

Well, I did get pretty exhausted. 48 hours without (much) sleep will do that to you.

Toaster:

notquitethere is still doing it and is still scum:

ZU
My read is informed by Nerjin's demise: who is the person he would have tried to kill? Captain Ford is the most likely answer, as I explained in my post above. This isn't buddying, this is logic. If someone can give me a convincing counterfactual to my earlier argument then I'll revise my opinion.

You found NQT scummy for answering ZU's question?

That was either lazy or intentional. NQT didn't say anything new. He made a mistake when he stated that information in the first place, but I don't see a problem with him using it to explain his read since it's already out there.

You've been aloof since the game started, commenting on the proceedings but not applying pressure to anyone. You jumped on the NQT bandwagon late -- for good reason, admittedly -- but you aren't looking closely at his posts. To me, a member of the town should be concerned about whether or not he's made the right choice, and should be more careful in analyzing his target's posts than you have been.

Your overall behavior -- aloofness, applying little pressure, jumping on a slip by a weak player and playing it up -- just strikes me as classic scum behavior. Given your experience, this profile fits very well. Ever since you started attacking NQT, you've barely even talked to anyone else.

I'm confident that's an accurate summary of your behavior. But if you can offer greater insight, I would like to hear it.

[Teneb]

First off, obolisk I asked for your reads on everyone one. You proceeded to ignore that. Here's when I asked it, so you can't claim to be ignorant of it:

Obolisk, you've been lurking for the entire game, so one small pfp post isn't going to be enough. Since you already said your read on me, give us your read on everyone else.

Stop being lazy and do it.

Ford:

It was not "just a joke". It was not a serious claim, but I was making a serious point.

Here you claim your "I am a mason" wasn't a joke. Which you repeated quite a bit. Instead you claim you were making a serious point. Tell me, what point would that be.

I did no such thing. I never claimed it wasn't a joke. It was indeed a joke.

"not just a joke" does not equal "not a joke". Do you understand the difference?

Nice dodge there. You haven't answered what I asked. WHAT POINT YOU WERE TRYING TO MAKE?

Now, you may be wondering why I voted you, and not NQT. That's because I realized something. See, I had never played a game with NQT before, or read the ongoing BM. So when NQT started acting friendly (something rare in a mafia game) towards me (and others), I mistook it for a buddying attempt, rather than what it truly was: he was, quite simply, an eager new player that wanted to play what he thought to be a good game. Then, I attacked him and started building a case on him, while he tried to defend himself. Then came you. The heroic Captain Ford, completely sure of NQT's alignment and personality, ready to defend him from the evil Deathsword.

Of course you know NQT isn't scum. That is because you are, and you know your team. You saw my attacks on NQT as an opportunity. An opportunity to turn my own arguments against me and drive a lynch on me. It was actually a good plan, I'll admit. Not only that, but by defending NQT, you gain his trust, further encouraging him to support my lynch. Then comes lazy lurker obolisk, and instead of giving reads on players or at least trying to find evidence, merely parrots what others have said. I guess had I kept on believing that NQT was the real danger you would have voted me and tried to drive a lynch on me, maybe even attempt to convice enough people to hammer.

Time to die, Captain Scum.

Actually, you're the one who gave me doubts about NQT. I pressured you to get you to explain your case, because I couldn't see what you were seeing. Now I can see what you saw, and I understand your reasons.

I think your reasons were justified, and I don't think you're scum. At least, I don't think the case you were pushing makes you scummy.

Also, you're putting words in my mouth. At no point in my argument with you did I claim to know NQT's alignment. I only ever said "I can tell he's not panicking", and "he wasn't buddying you". I never claimed to know his alignment.

NQT is still quite possibly scum. I don't happen to think he is.

And yet again you ignore part of what I typed. Have you nothing to say about my accusations? Because, together with the quote above, it looks like you are trying to ignore this.


Edourist:

While I would generally feel both DS and NQT are essentially cleared, I am reading both of them as scum. Because we greatly outnumber scum, I think we could go for an information lynch to double-check.

NQT

If one/both of them are town, PoTL and obo or ford are next likely scum.

This is incredibly lazy and quite a bit scummy. Tell me: should we, instead of scumhunting, just lynch people that seem scummy to you until we hit scum?

NQT:

TolyK hasn't posted in ages. Lurking is bad for everyone in the game. I suggest policy-lynch unless a replacement is found soon. What do people think?

Also somewhat lazy. You are avoiding scumhunting by going for a policy lynch. That is not an excuse to stop hunting.

ZU: Would you mind doing some real posts instead of the activelurking you've done so far?

Mod: Prod TolyK. Prod him hard.

[Leafsnail]

TolyK has posted within the past day.

[Tiruin]

PFP

Captain Ford

[...]And I've been giving you a wide berth, not ignoring you. You kind of seem to be your own worst enemy.[...]

And here is me taking this as a passive insult at my playstyle. A really bad one.

If its language confusion you care so much about, why not address it in the first place other than giving one-off statements which can only be discerned by guesswork, hmm? Or perhaps, you could just tell me, OOC what you see wrong with it so I can improve - I'm no stranger to that, good sir. I'm not saying you're being irrational, but I'm saying that you should stop judging by previous experiences if you've played with the person...one or two times!

Tiruin, you've been fishing for people's alliances ever since the game began. Why? How does that help you? How does it help the town win?

Let me await obolisk's statement before giving in a (somewhat) controversial post. As for the rest of your queries: I've been 'fishing' - generally, poking - at those people who were muchly inactive and vague with their cases and only them. It does not specifically help me as it shows everyone what those particular people have. What I guess you're doing here is subtly defending your statement on 'information that could help scum find masons', but I'll answer anyway.

The reads (not fishing for their alliances) help everyone else see what the person sees in relation to who is suspicious from their eyes. The rest is up to the person to follow or analyze.

I only withheld my opinions about who I thought was a mason.

And this deviates from that sentence of 'information that could help scum find masons'. What makes you think your word holds more...essence as to who might be a mason or not?

[Captain Ford]

Note to others: I'm devoting this post to Deathsword, I'll address other things later.

Deathsword:

Ford:

It was not "just a joke". It was not a serious claim, but I was making a serious point.

Here you claim your "I am a mason" wasn't a joke. Which you repeated quite a bit. Instead you claim you were making a serious point. Tell me, what point would that be.

I did no such thing. I never claimed it wasn't a joke. It was indeed a joke.

"not just a joke" does not equal "not a joke". Do you understand the difference?

Nice dodge there. You haven't answered what I asked. WHAT POINT YOU WERE TRYING TO MAKE?

Hell if I know. I suppose it might have had something to do with the logic above it. Maybe something about "mason claims not meaning anything."[/sarcasm]

I've only been saying that about once a day on average. I seriously thought that part of your statement was rhetorical.

...but if you still don't get it, then here's the ultra-secret-impossibly-complex-reason-that-no-one-seems-to-be-able-to-figure-out-on-their-own:

Spoiler: The Point Was... (click to show/hide)

Mason claims are meaningless.

A real shocker, I know.

Now, you may be wondering why I voted you, and not NQT. That's because I realized something. See, I had never played a game with NQT before, or read the ongoing BM. So when NQT started acting friendly (something rare in a mafia game) towards me (and others), I mistook it for a buddying attempt, rather than what it truly was: he was, quite simply, an eager new player that wanted to play what he thought to be a good game. Then, I attacked him and started building a case on him, while he tried to defend himself. Then came you. The heroic Captain Ford, completely sure of NQT's alignment and personality, ready to defend him from the evil Deathsword.

Of course you know NQT isn't scum. That is because you are, and you know your team. You saw my attacks on NQT as an opportunity. An opportunity to turn my own arguments against me and drive a lynch on me. It was actually a good plan, I'll admit. Not only that, but by defending NQT, you gain his trust, further encouraging him to support my lynch. Then comes lazy lurker obolisk, and instead of giving reads on players or at least trying to find evidence, merely parrots what others have said. I guess had I kept on believing that NQT was the real danger you would have voted me and tried to drive a lynch on me, maybe even attempt to convice enough people to hammer.

Time to die, Captain Scum.

Actually, you're the one who gave me doubts about NQT. I pressured you to get you to explain your case, because I couldn't see what you were seeing. Now I can see what you saw, and I understand your reasons.

I think your reasons were justified, and I don't think you're scum. At least, I don't think the case you were pushing makes you scummy.

Also, you're putting words in my mouth. At no point in my argument with you did I claim to know NQT's alignment. I only ever said "I can tell he's not panicking", and "he wasn't buddying you". I never claimed to know his alignment.

NQT is still quite possibly scum. I don't happen to think he is.

And yet again you ignore part of what I typed. Have you nothing to say about my accusations? Because, together with the quote above, it looks like you are trying to ignore this.

I thought you didn't like WoTs? (Seriously, I was trying to keep it short since you said you didn't like them. I've even stopped putting newlines between quotes and my own text to shorten my posts. You can even check that if you want to)

But since you asked for it, I'll give you the long version.

Now, you may be wondering why I voted you, and not NQT.

Not really.

That's because I realized something.

Good for you! Have a cookie!

See, I had never played a game with NQT before, or read the ongoing BM. So when NQT started acting friendly (something rare in a mafia game) towards me (and others), I mistook it for a buddying attempt, rather than what it truly was: he was, quite simply, an eager new player that wanted to play what he thought to be a good game.

Oh. This is new. Go on.

Then, I attacked him and started building a case on him, while he tried to defend himself.

Uh huh, yeah. I'm with you so far.

Then came you. The heroic Captain Ford, completely sure of NQT's alignment and personality, ready to defend him from the evil Deathsword.

I never said I was certain of NQT's alignment. You are putting words in my mouth.

I never said you were evil, either. Just that you had a shit case. Which you did, and it looks like you are admitting now. Bravo.

Of course you know NQT isn't scum. That is because you are, and you know your team.

Intriguingly, you are currently displaying a far greater level of certainty in my alignment than I ever have in yours, or in NQTs. But go on.

You saw my attacks on NQT as an opportunity.

Sure. To attack someone for being paranoid and making a shit case.

An opportunity to turn my own arguments against me and drive a lynch on me.

If by "turn my own arguments against me" you mean "point out that I was being paranoid, obstinate and pushing a shit case", then yes. Otherwise, no.

And that would be a great argument, if I'd ever advocated for a lynch on you. Which I haven't.

It was actually a good plan, I'll admit.

Nice job patting yourself on the back there. Yep. Considering it's your plan and all.

Not only that, but by defending NQT, you gain his trust, further encouraging him to support my lynch.

That's a seriously devious plan. I'd have to work really hard getting the person you attacked with a paranoid and shitty case to vote you. Yep. Real hard. There's no way he would have voted you on his own if I hadn't intervened.

Then comes lazy lurker obolisk, and instead of giving reads on players or at least trying to find evidence, merely parrots what others have said.

Yeah, you're delusional if you think that was planned out. You really are paranoid, aren't you?

I guess had I kept on believing that NQT was the real danger you would have voted me and tried to drive a lynch on me, maybe even attempt to convice enough people to hammer.

I don't understand what the point of this statement is. Maybe you're saying, "I guess if I had kept pushing a shit case, people would eventually catch on that I'm a moron and off me."

Time to die, Captain Scum.

Let this be our final battle!

* * *

Okay, I've been through the whole thing, and learned some new things. The first is that you've suddenly changed your stance on NQT, accepting all of the arguments I was pushing, all in order to lead a charge against me. Could you be any more hotheaded?

Secondly, you're even more paranoid and delusional than I thought.

Third, even more lazy. That long diatribe was all conjecture and hyperbole. The only thing of substance in there was your subtle admission that you were wrong and I was right, and that's a very weird way to start an attack on somebody. But I'm happy you did it anyway. Good boy! Have another cookie.

Spoiler: OOC (click to show/hide)

I'm not sure why I'm talking down to you like this. I don't seem to do it to anyone else. It just seems to come naturally when I'm talking to you.

[zombie urist]

Never format a post like that again.

[Tiruin]

Never format a post like that again.

It's easy to read though Kudos to Ford for making it easy on the eyes, despite the length of it.

Loving that link btw.

Ford:
If you've got time, answer this question instead of what I asked in the above. [Which is also what I'm asking obolisk]

Suppose someone claimed mason and said four names including his own, what would you think of that?

[zombie urist]

On the contrary, I found it very difficult to read.

Sorry about the lack of posts. I'll try to get something substantial tomorrow.

[Captain Ford]

Tiruin:

Ford:
If you've got time, answer this question instead of what I asked in the above. [Which is also what I'm asking obolisk]

Suppose someone claimed mason and said four names including his own, what would you think of that?

It's practically guaranteed to not be an accurate listing. If it were, the game would practically be over, and where's the fun in that? Of course, I can't assume it's false, either. Best to assume nothing and look for connections later.

But it also depends on the person making the claim and the context. If any of the players are dead, of course, it could make a big difference. If any of them were on my team, I'd have a much better idea about the veracity of the claim. If the person was actually on my team and actually listed the full team roster ... well, that would be Fun.