Tiruin
I disagree on the point that we need to be told what we need to do.
Well, the town obviously do need a reminder of their duties because they're currently collectively doing nothing to prevent a mislynch.
In which your arguments against it lean more on showcasing the point and telling everyone that it is a mislynch--This is something we disagree on. Do we know yer role, sir? No. Only you do, and the point in case of depending on that notion is far less persuasive than facing up those who are voting you and going on that point. Sure, it may come off as defensiveness, but people are smarter than the superficial reader: they can see or sense what the writer is doing, in a way.
Now on those.."Duties"? You spoke about it in turn before all this, and it's quite detailed, I've to say. What's irking me is why you're shifting the notion to ulterior self-defense. You're (well, more of seemingly) defending yourself instead of proving those who are voting you wrong (however the effort seems more sincere than not, and I'm attributing what you're doing now to your..playstyle.)
Why do you keep on shifting the point and shoving 'this is what town must do' in it's case?
Why did you ask me if I disagree? Why state those three people and denote them as lurkers and my opinion of them?
I want to know what you think of things, obviously. You were the most inactive player, I wanted to know your view on the other most inactive players. That's not an unusual request. Are you going to do something useful with your vote before the day ends (in about 20 hours time)?
Toaster
I believe you missed this.
Why did you miss it? What uselessness do you see with this vote that you don't attack it directly?
I recently played a game over on mafiascum and one thing it showed me is that when there's a hammer, the players are forced to do something useful with their vote. You've all got to keep in mind that if you're not voting for one of the lynch leads or making a new lynch lead, then you're vote is doing nothing at day's end and if you don't think the person who's about to be lynched is scum, then you are wilfully letting scum win.
...So experience from a mafiascum game is your sole defense against the arguments against you?
Could you tell me why you're reacting in such a way that people would miss pertinent points in others' posts? ...Like a tattletale?
DeathswordEveryone
[Think about this carefully. If I'm scum, where's my scum team to make an alternative case? Look at the votes-- they're evenly spread except for on me. I'm willing to bet that this pattern has never been seen on a day 1 scum lynch before. All it takes for evil to prevail is you all doing nothing.
This is some massive bullshit. Just because it never happened before it does not mean it'll never happen. In BM XL I fakeclaimed and borno counterclaimed. Had it ever happened before in a BM? Probably not. Did it still happen? Yes, it did. And don't think I haven't noticed your appeal to emotion at the end.
You then list off some of the accusations and counter them. I don't feel that is particularly scummy. This, however, is:
Town, it's your job to critically examine the votes against the Day 1 lynch lead. Do it.
You talk to the town as if you are not part of it. Strange, is it not? You slipped good there.
NQT, thou art caught.
Could you remind us all how, in context, does this seem like a good slip? If semantics is your reason, define and expound on it, please.
That doesn't come off as necessarily scummy to me, judging by how NQT's playstyle is, and judging by how his intent is brought about in his posts, and while the notion in itself does lead to suspect, I'm pretty curious how you shifted that suspicion from-..
Well, you didn't vote anyone else
in your first five posts.And the jump goes here to thou art caught?Pretty interesting.
I'm trying to figure out what Lenglon's deal is; my posts weren't exactly something I was trying to bottle up for mass consumption, or to convince anyone. I didn't flip-flop on NQT, either. That was the only part of his post I objected to, and though I still think he shouldn't have posted that bit, I understand how using unpopular scumhunting criteria can look like WIFOM. Once he explained "I'm referring to my voting records thing" I knew that it wasn't WIFOM, but rather a technique I disagreed with; and he was quite chill about it, too.
Yes, I've focused on Lenglon. So what? If she's scum, then it's time well-spent.
"If."
So what if you've focused on Lenglon? What's so wrong with that, that you go all uppity on the point?
From your focus, what're you leaning on given her mannerisms? The 'if' there seems to be a supporting idea backing up your case.
Meaning: You seem defensive on that point. What's up with that?
Tiruin:
NQT
"Bonjour everyone! My name is Katherine Boulengier and I am a journeyman carpenter, new to this ville. Alors! It is most effroyable to be quarantined like so, and our best hope is to find zese mauvais witches as rapidly as possible. To facilitate zis, I suggest we all share our names and professions."
"Alright, how is sharing one's identity even going to help here? Or possibly track who is a witch or not? If these things were such, then the inquisition would be easily finding them by now. Unless it is the inquisition, which I doubt.
"Still. My name is Gillette Doulze, an aid to my father's inn. I am not from this town, but on errands from my father and sternly advised by my mother. Local marketplace groceries and such. This seems to be a very strange point you're making. Meaning that you didn't continue on this point you made from earlier."
Now, earlier I said I was suspicious about the claims, aye? Here's my suspicion. While this does avert the notion of people not knowing each other (and on the notion of being a common point given the idea that scum only know alignment difference and all that), this is strange in itself in asking the name and profession and connecting it with directly finding witches.
What would you hope to gain other than knowing our name and probable profession?
I find it odd that you vote NQT for asking for claims then immediately proceed to claiming yourself anyway. Why is asking for it scummy when you're willing to do it anyway?
Toaster is right here, you did what Okami did a few days ago and it still bothers me to contradict yourself like that. I think in Okami's case he said soft-claiming is the right way to go (as a bunch of people have agreed, like Dariush and Toaster and me), but NQT's action to claim and then tell everybody else that they should claim was a bit forceful and leads to suspicion.
Let me clarify. My vote was a pressure vote--something I usually do at the start of the game or within my first posts so I can start building up along the way.
Oh, it's a pressure vote! So it's fine to contradict yourself.
That's like "I was claiming, the way that people do in the endgame to weed out imposters, which is why it's fine that I claimed SK and you shouldn't vote me."
...That's a horrible misrepresentation of my words.
However I'm wondering if this is a misunderstanding on semantics and wording rather than not, because contradiction is somehow the first thing to jump to mind. Did you skim my words, take their superficial meaning and come up with the worst possible idea? Or were you just snarking.
To facilitate zis, I suggest we all share our names and professions
> My point of targeting.
The arguments raised against me go along the line of 'why do you vote the guy asking for claims, yet claim yourself?' including parts on it being scummy or not.
My defense.
I said suspicion, which generally pokes at the intention and doesn't outright announce it as scummy. It could either be a backroom motive, or some quirk in his intention. My reply would've been 'I'm waiting on NQT's answer, then I'll explain'.
What I was thinking at the time was what NQT himself stated--matching up roles and probable events later on, but his reply was the crucial part of it.
The addition of the bolded portion
Oh, it's a pressure vote! So it's fine to contradict yourself.
tells me you're waiting for something while giving me some sort of conclusion on your side which you don't expound.
Suspicion can go along many terms. You trying to perceive what he's seeing, trying to glean on how or what that person was thinking when he asked such. For me, a vote is more than the notion of finding one scummy, but also as a tool to find out information. It's in the reaction of what the person does which adds to it.
But I guess me using the term of pressure vote was wrong in its colloquial meaning. When I say pressure in this context, it goes along a press for information. What I was thinking when first reading this was "He's claiming just as he's asking. I wonder if-I'll ask."
The - there was me coming up with a thousand ideas on why he's doing it, the notion of cross-matching being only one of them, but the best way was for me to ask on it.
And then follow it up after giving my claim.
What would you hope to gain other than knowing our name and probable profession?
Why do you skew my words into a..strange representation of it? You add a nonessential clause to the manner (hence me wondering if you were just snarking at me) and yet it goes like this.
I was claiming, which is why it's fine that I claimed SK and you shouldn't vote me.
...How the hell does this make sense.
Author
Topic: Witches' Coven: In the Heart of Darkness [GAME OVER: 4/13] (Read 203990 times)