Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 84

Author Topic: Witches' Coven: In the Heart of Darkness [GAME OVER: 4/13]  (Read 203317 times)

ToonyMan

  • Bay Watcher
  • Danger Magnet
    • View Profile
Re: Witches' Coven: In the Heart of Darkness [D1: 13/13]
« Reply #375 on: August 11, 2013, 12:51:51 pm »

Unvote Vector.  I don't see a reason to vote you anymore.



@Leafsnail:
No time.  Town feelings on NQT, Lenglon, Toony.  Mafia on Vector.  Will look at griffin's post properly later.
Feel like Toony will probably scumdie tonight, maybe ZU.  Lenglon/NQT would be inspected
Why is Vector mafia?  Why would ZU get night-killed?



@Zombie Urist:
You got me, I have no idea how to respond to your line of questioning anymore.  If you have an answer you were looking for you can tell me.
I was assuming my character didn't have any knowledge of any misfortune striking his town (preposterous even), if I ctrl+f my role PM for the words "plague", "famine", "drought", and "miscarriage" I get zero hits.  So yes, he may know and I was just being an idiot.  This is the only thing I can think of.
This post from Tiruin responding to a Lenglon inquire is interesting.  Lenglon's character seems to have a motivation for witch-hunting, Tiruin is purposely withholding because it's "confusing", and my character does not want to witch-hunt (not that I'm going to listen to him).
You also accuse NQT and Dariush here, but one of your stated reasons for NQT is that they're "female".  I am not voting Vector because their character is female, but because I don't believe their intentions are sincere, Mr. Old-Clothes Salesman.
As a question towards you, how do you see Ottofar right now?
"I wish for a peaceful place, and do not want witch-trials ravaging the town.  This is purely for the good of the people."
What is "purely for the good of the people?"
a) A peaceful place
b) Witch Trials
c) Other
=====
My reason for NQT is being female and a carpenter, which I did not believe existed in this time period.
Ottofar is mostly null to slightly town. It would be nice if he posted more.
In-character would be a peaceful place, yeah.  I'm not sure how that's unclear, since the only other this would be "do not want witch-trials".

You're my second lynch pick right now, but I have a better idea at the moment.



@Lenglon:
Toonyman: I full-flavor-claimed earlier, so me going ahead and adding my description to the lot seems lower-risk than having someone else do so. Do you think I should claim my description now that I have it?
Uh, sure.  I saw your full-claim post earlier (which I really don't understand why you bothered to do that), but might as well add your physical appearance too in your case.



@Ottofar:
Look, I tied the votes.  We have over an entire day to deal with this dilemma though so I'm not worried.  I think you're more scummy than NQT.  And unless other people throw their chips in this isn't going to go anywhere.

On the basis I've been cried foul, I'll vote for an extend to get Leafsnail and Griffinpup time and let Deathsword get a possible replacement.
Logged

ToonyMan

  • Bay Watcher
  • Danger Magnet
    • View Profile

On the basis of being cried foul*
Logged

Toaster

  • Bay Watcher
  • Appliance
    • View Profile

Time is short, so I'll try to post to this tonight.
Logged
HMR stands for Hazardous Materials Requisition, not Horrible Massive Ruination, though I can understand how one could get confused.
God help us if we have to agree on pizza toppings at some point. There will be no survivors.

Tiruin

  • Bay Watcher
  • Life is too short for worries
    • View Profile

"It's in your last two posts silly!"
you've been asking me questions poking at the reason I would consider such an action an option. the problem is, answering such questions would be the same as telling you what I think the answer to my own question would be. of course it's my choice, and you're going to see what I decide on, but I want to hear your answer, and why your answer, first.

...Ok, what was the context of us trading answers? Sorry, mind is fuzzy and it's 3 am. Personal fault for working up till now, still working on that project. >__>

Because those two posts are here and I see one question that seems to be the root of it all.

Quote
Do you think I should claim my description now that I have it?
I don't have an answer from LNCP on mine yet though (no reply) if that's what you mean.

And really, I'm seriously lost with what you're trying to say. First, you don't answer my "Why ask me if I think you should claim your description", and then somehow say I'm 'twisting' it.

Could you at least provide quotes? <__<

"It's in your last two posts silly!"
you've been asking me questions poking at the reason I would consider such an action an option. the problem is, answering such questions would be the same as telling you what I think the answer to my own question would be. of course it's my choice, and you're going to see what I decide on, but I want to hear your answer, and why your answer, first.
Here, at least I've a clue on what you've been talking about. I have no idea what such explicitly means, but what I get is that the vague idea that you think, from the orange portion above, was from my queries.

As in giving personal details like physical appearance. Where's the problem in answering something like that? That's one skewed problem, if you ask me. Answering why you would consider such an option doesn't answer it, but gives a general idea on why you're doing it.

My answer? Sure. Because I really doubt physical appearance would be a derisive note on catching scum here. Unless you've a role or ability which actually acts on it. Guess what, I'll just change into my casual garments if it would help prove a point even when I'm unsure in flavor if I have casual garments, ok?

Because what I'm getting at your recent, quoteless and linkless posts are that you're asking ToonyMan and somehow me if you should post in your physical description. There is where my confusion starts.

Where did I ask that, and where am I twisting anything??

You ask that "Hey, now that I know how I look like, should I claim it?"
My thoughts: Why is she asking me that. That's her decision. I mean, wut.
> Goes to post my thoughts on it.

> Re-reads.

I will now attempt to connect your description of lower risk to that in context and narrow it down to the question at hand.

I full-flavor-claimed earlier, so me going ahead and adding my description to the lot seems lower-risk [lower risk meaning lower risk of giving the scum information they can use. Since I've already full-flavor-claimed, if they need flavor-information from me for them to be fully effective then they probably already have what they need from me.] than having someone else do so. Do you think I should claim my description now that I have it?
And then confusion hits me. Why is she asking me on whether or not she should post her physical description at all? How in the world is my opinion giving weight to that, and why in the world does physical description even matter in this kind of notion? Scum would use that as a weapon, now, other than the conventional notions of scumhunting and the essence of peoples' posts?

So let me get this straight out: I don't care (ok this sounds mean..)

> Yes or no. Your choice is yours. I don't mind at all if you give it now that you have it, and it would be weird that others would go "Hey LNCP, can I know how (this player) looks like" and then he'd go "sure buddy, here's how they look like!" in your scenario there and then label it as something scum would explicitly use.

Which pertains to the orange colored statement, above.

Now please sort this out, Lenglon. That was really quite confusing there.
Logged

lordnincompoop

  • Bay Watcher
  • Allusionist
    • View Profile
Re: Witches' Coven: In the Heart of Darkness [D1: 13/13]
« Reply #379 on: August 11, 2013, 02:34:02 pm »

Votecount:
Dariush  - 0 - 
Deathsword  - 1 -  griffinpup
griffinpup  - 1 -  Leafsnail
Leafsnail  - 1 -  Vector
Lenglon  - 0 - 
notquitethere  - 3 -  Toaster, Ottofar, Dariush
Okami No Rei  - 1 -  zombie urist
Ottofar  - 3 -  Lenglon, notquitethere, ToonyMan
Tiruin  - 0 - 
Toaster  - 1 -  Tiruin
ToonyMan  - 0 - 
Vector  - 0 - 
zombie urist  - 1 -  Okami No Rei
-
Not Voting  - 1 -  Deathsword
No Lynch  - 0 - 
-
Extend  - 1 -  Toonyman
Shorten  - 0 - 



Okami no Rei has been prodded.

The Day ends in 23 hours, on the 12th of August, 8PM GMT.

3 more votes required to Extend. 7 votes required to Shorten. 2 Extends left for the Day.
Logged

Lenglon

  • Bay Watcher
  • Everyone cries, the question is what follows it.
    • View Profile

Tiruin: ok, I've got the answer I was looking for in amoungst that big ol' mess of confusion we just had. What's going on is I wanted to put you and Toony on the spot simply as a form of RVS-style "how do you think" question. you think asked me a some questions about how I thought in response, without answering mine. That was what I was referring too.

The "risk" source relates to the same reason Leafsnail doesn't want to flavor-claim. if the scum have night actions that require information about flavor, then claiming helps them.

I don't feel a need to ask you to claim your description. keep it to yourself until you have a reason to claim.

"why you" was arbitrary and semi-random. I just picked the first two names that came to mind amoung the active players.

you did not ever ask me anything on the subject before my question, there was no context for me to pick you out when I asked the question, I just kinda did it.

Toonyman: what makes Ottofar more scummy than NQT? you didn't post a reason when you voted beyond "he seems more scummy".

Extend: I want Pup's input, Leafsnail to be able to post more than two sentences at a time, and Deathsword to finish being replaced, before Day End if possible.

My Description:
I am in my fourties, but look older.
My hair is brown with a touch of grey and rough-cut short.
my face is wrinkled and has several pockmarks.
I walk with a mildly stooped posture.
My clothes are mostly made from wool or linen in dull colors
Logged
((I don't think heating something that is right above us to a ridiculous degree is very smart. Worst case scenario we become +metal statues+. This is a finely crafted metal statue. It is encrusted with sharkmist and HMRC. On the item is an image of HMRC and Pancaek. Pancaek is laughing. The HMRC is melting. The artwork relates to the encasing of the HMRC in metal by Pancaek during the Mission of Many People.))

notquitethere

  • Bay Watcher
  • PIRATE
    • View Profile

Extend
[There's obviously a lot I want to respond to here but I have a huge sleep debt to work off. I'll have a post up Monday morning GMT.]
Logged

zombie urist

  • Bay Watcher
  • [NOT_LIVING]
    • View Profile

The days been dragging but I guess I'll extend because I want to hear what pup/LS/ONR has to say.

"..Well, while my motivation is benevolent, it isn't in directly culling the witches from this town (...I'm implying it is such though, given my flavor context) but..err, this is where I'm confused. It's not confusion as in 'What is this and what shall I do', but confusion along the way of what others would do, per se.
"..Yes I know that sounds confusing, but what I do know is that, from the earliest visit here, that there are other forces than witches around.
"No, I've no idea whom or who, but that there is. I'm open to information and not withholding it like Leafsnail, but that I just can't get it is the point in this matter."

So you don't care about killing witches? Also you know that third parties exist? Are you third party?
Logged
The worst part of all of this is that Shakerag won.

Leafsnail

  • Bay Watcher
  • A single snail can make a world go extinct.
    • View Profile
Re: Witches' Coven: In the Heart of Darkness [D1: 13/13]
« Reply #383 on: August 11, 2013, 07:19:38 pm »

I'm back but it's pretty late.  Extend.

Leafsnail: why are you still voting pup? he cannot be pressured while he isn't here, and you can always switch back to voting him after he returns. is that a lynch vote or do you not have any other targets or suspicions? If it is a lynch vote, what is your case?
I wasn't aware that he was absent, unvote.  I wouldn't say it was an empty pressure vote or a locked in lynching vote, rather an "I think you are mafia at the moment so I am voting for you" vote.

For the record I don't pressure vote much outside of RVS, and if I do I don't say so.

Why is Vector mafia?  Why would ZU get night-killed?
The reads came from general impressions.  I got them because:

NQT (town): Partly because this is pretty much how he plays town, partly because passive day one lynch wagons don't tend to spring up against mafia members.  Plus his point about actively selecting lynches is pretty correct.

Lenglon (town): His thought process has been laid out clearly and it seems pretty honest.

ToonyMan (town): His posts tend to challenge others in a way that scum usually doesn't bother with, again comes across as pretty genuine.

Vector (scum): There's a lot of talking but not all that much actual scumhunting.  It's mostly either back-and-forthing or picking up on small points that aren't adequately followed up.

I said ZU was a possible kill target because I was getting a fairly decent vibe off his posts a few pages ago, but I clearly didn't think it through properly because there's no way the mafia would kill someone under fairly strong suspicion.

Vector: If I had to condense the problem I'm having with your posts, it's that you're spending quite a lot of time and words in tangential discussions with Lenglon and Tiruin, while only touching on fairly superficial points when scumhunting (such as me talking about investigations, NQT's alleged focus on "instead").  It means I'm struggling to tell what your thoughts are on the core issues of the game, such as which people are mafia members.  Who do you think is mafia members?
Logged

Jim Groovester

  • Bay Watcher
  • 1P
    • View Profile
Re: Witches' Coven: In the Heart of Darkness [D1: 13/13]
« Reply #384 on: August 11, 2013, 07:29:29 pm »

Votecount:
Dariush  - 0 - 
Deathsword  - 1 -  griffinpup
griffinpup  - 0 - 
Leafsnail  - 1 -  Vector
Lenglon  - 0 - 
notquitethere  - 3 -  Toaster, Ottofar, Dariush
Okami No Rei  - 1 -  zombie urist
Ottofar  - 3 -  Lenglon, notquitethere, ToonyMan
Tiruin  - 0 - 
Toaster  - 1 -  Tiruin
ToonyMan  - 0 - 
Vector  - 1 -  Leafsnail
zombie urist  - 1 -  Okami No Rei
-
Not Voting  - 1 -  Deathsword
No Lynch  - 0 - 
-
Extend  - 0 - 
Shorten  - 0 - 



The Day has been extended to the 14th of August, 8PM GMT.

4 votes required to Extend. 7 votes required to Shorten. 1 Extend left for the Day.
Logged
I understood nothing, contributed nothing, but still got to win, so good game everybody else.

Toaster

  • Bay Watcher
  • Appliance
    • View Profile
Re: Witches' Coven: In the Heart of Darkness [D1: 13/13]
« Reply #385 on: August 11, 2013, 08:37:27 pm »

Tiruin:
However, there are points I can't argue against (especially the deflecting as it goes off more as deflecting..however something's just wrong when I read his posts. He's coming off as a non-scum [third-party is my best bet followed by extremely philosophical townie, which would be pretty strange. 95% third-party attitude, 3% townie, 2% scum. That's how I'm viewing it at the moment.] given how he answers things) given how he's representing himself.

This line really sours any point you're trying to make.

> Disproportionate..seems much like that. I saw it as a neutral answer where he stated..IC. While it is suspicious, it could also be said that (1), he chose to answer it IC (yet it is strange seeing how he doesn't address it explicitly, he does [prior to bad semantics] say  I am not, as you say, a "third party". I am a journeyman carpenter." The second sentence throws it off.)

Talking IC is not a shield to being scumhunted.

>...crude and unfocused? That goes along the lines of diversion. Where specifically marks this out?


Here, he keeps harping on lurkers, continually demonizing them so as to draw attention to them instead of himself.  This is the second of his two main diversionary tactics.  (The first being what I mentioned very early on concerning his reaction to me asking if out of town meant third party.) 

2. This is pretty much a taunt to me.

You respond in turn, here. You aren't sure what his point is despite him clearly outlining it?
Quote
You have the gall to accuse me of deflecting and then this is your response to my follow up?
I mean, there's nothing to glean but a disgusting insult to logic by that banter on your part.

His point that I laughed at had about as much logical value as me laughing at it.  Can you honestly tell me that he is making any semblance of a valid point there?  I gave that line every bit of response it deserved.

On another read, perhaps I should clarify a bit.

Your vote is incredibly weak and will mark you as scum if I am lynched or night killed.]

I have underlined the laughable part.  Perhaps you thought I meant the rest of it?

Quote
Not sure what your point is, since you were deflecting and I was blowing off your ridiculous statement, which are two separate things.
> Ridiculous statement in turn was:
Quote
[I don't think it's deflection: I clearly answered your question, didn't I? I'm not third party. And furthermore, if your reasoning for believing that I am third-party were that I'm an out-of-towner, that would make you a third-party too (outlying is still outside). Your vote is incredibly weak and will mark you as scum if I am lynched or night killed.]
He answered it as clean as day here. Something which you didn't poke. This something being my point.

Did you poke that matter? No. You didn't.

I never said that he didn't answer my question.  He did- I've never argued this point.  My argument is that he answered it in a scummy way, which I said:

These- especially put together- are some pretty serious deflection.  You really don't like me implying that you're third party because you're out of town- as such, I do believe I will keep voting you.

You give a crappy generalist conclusion to it.
Damn skippy it is.  Not sure what your point is, since you were deflecting and I was blowing off your ridiculous statement, which are two separate things.

In any case, I'm voting you because after I threw a question pertaining to "not from town = anti town" at you, you then deflected attention away from yourselfBefore I could even respond you throw it right back at me.  Basically, you flipped out over my simple question.  You then threaten me with said ridiculous statement, which is just laughable.
Why would you blow off a case such as this when you do say it's a flip? That's pretty much something to build upon, eh?

Blow off a case?  What?  You quoted me stating the entirety of my case at the moment, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say.  Given that the post you have quoted here is from the first half of day 1, I'm not sure what deep reserves of material you're expecting me to bring.  What more were you expecting at this point?

3.
NQT:
Toaster
[No, I answered your question and followed up by indicating that if your logic was not from town = anti town" then you yourself would be out-of-town and so your continued vote made absolutely no sense. I fail to see how this is a lynchable offence. You've voted for me in the RVS and have kept your vote parked there since-- a typical scum manoeuvre.  You're fabricating the flimsiest of pretexts to get away from doing something productive with your vote. If you're town then you need to step up your game; if your not, then laugh all you like: you're rumbled.

What's your view on Zombie Urist?]

The answering of the question wasn't the point- it was the fact you pointed fingers elsewhere on the out-of-town issue, and how it got you so riled up.  Also, the vote wasn't and has never been a random vote- it was specifically directed at you on the grounds of something you said.  It got a scummy reaction, so it stuck.  Finally, just because you call the vote flimsy doesn't actually make it so.
You say 'your reaction is what I'm talking about' in a weird way. How did he point fingers when he distinctly said the above? His only other question was asking if you were out of town yourself.

The reaction was scummy--how? I don't see you expounding on it. Nor on why it stuck.

To clarify the last statement: You only gave something; posting something and left it out for conclusions to be derived rather than state how and in which parts, why, it is scummy.

I think this indicates that you don't understand my case.  Let's go back to the beginning:

(And I really should have quoted the next line in my first response to this post- it does really make it harder to see my point without that.)

Toaster
NQT:  In the first game, IIRC all the out-of-towners were third party.  Are you non-town?
"A most interesting suggestion, Monsieur Petit. I am not, as you say, a "third party". I am a journeyman carpenter. But, alors! We must not rule out ze possibility of townsfolk sharing connections through similar circumstances. On zat note..."

Dariush, Deathsword, Zombie Urist
"I could not help but notice zat you are all in the clothes trade. Do any of you work closely together? Also, are any of you new to Uzès?"

Yes, he answers my question.  If he had left it off with just the underlined bit, I wouldn't have batted an eye.  But no, he had to go on and direct the attention of out-of-towners elsewhere.  Then, in his very next post...

Toaster
"Monsiuer Petit, are you not also from out of town, as a farmer yourself?"

He turns it right back around on me!  Clearly, I have struck a nerve here.  If he had taken it as what it was- quick pressure- then I would have dropped it.  But no, he had to go on about it way more than what one would expect for a townie response.  Ergo, he has something to hide or this pressure resonated with him.  Either way, such is a scummy reaction.

...Ok, either I'm blind, or I'm not seeing where NQT is going, or perhaps pleading for his life. He's attracting attention, of course, but his attention was put in a directive way. 'See what they're doing to me'-ish.

Is this a scummy thing to do or not?

Also, you should read my forthcoming response to NQT.


Lenglon:
Lenglon:
I would like to request a Lynch All Lurkers policy-lynch on Ottofar. the last time he did any scumhunting was his first post of the game. I do not want to have a BM XL situation where the scum sit back, lurk, and watch the town tear itself apart.
This is way too early to do such a thing.  Either lead it yourself or just vote him and be done- don't try to get others to go along without leading a solid charge.
Toaster:my vote has been on Ottofar for three days now, have you not been keeping track of who is voting whom?

I am aware.  I just got a feeling of you trying to spread responsibility for an Ottofar lynch, which I didn't like.  It's not a lynchable offense, but it did get my attention.

Toaster...
Lenglon goes back and reviews Tiruin's case on Toaster
... That's actually a pretty darn good case, and I should have paid more attention to it when you made it. one moment...
Lenglon uses LurkerTracker to re-read all of Toaster's posts
Toaster: When I made my full flavor claim, I said that I was from Paris. do you think I am a third-party?
Toaster: I don't understand what made NQT's answer to your "are you a third-party" a deflection. could you please explain how that works when he said "I am not, as you say, a 'third party'"?
Toaster: If I ignore the third-party accusation from your post, then your case on NQT seems to be based entirely upon how he become upset when you continued to press him over his answer. Is this the entirety of your case?

No, I don't think you're third party.  Neither do I think NQT is third party because he is flavor says he is out of town.  As I have said, his reaction to the question is what makes me think so.
Read my response to Tiruin, specifically this bit:
For your third point, said reaction was the turning point between pressure and a serious vote.  Since then, he's done several other things, mainly his diversionary lurker castigating.


NQT:
Toaster -- Has made the semblance of justification for his attacks (but if you have half a brain then you know what alignment I am. Reread the penultimate thing I addressed to you.)

You know what, you are totally right- that slipped under my radar.  Let's take a look.

Toaster
The answering of the question wasn't the point- it was the fact you pointed fingers elsewhere on the out-of-town issue, and how it got you so riled up. Also, the vote wasn't and has never been a random vote- it was specifically directed at you on the grounds of something you said. It got a scummy reaction, so it stuck.
[I feel we're talking at cross-purposes here. I was only 'riled up' because your reasoning was seemed to me to be so bugnuts insane. You seemed to have been calling me a third-party for being out of town when you yourself were out of town. I realise now that it was my reaction that kept the vote on me. Sometimes I let righteous indignation get in the way of good play. I don't agree with your vote but at least I understand it now. Think back to your previous Witches games and look at my actions, you'll know exactly why I'm not a witch.]

Let's review.  I fished for a response out of you via the out of town = nontown bit.   I got a heated response, so I pressed it.  You go into survival mode.  This urge to not get lynched, plus this statement I am quoting again for emphasis:

you'll know exactly why I'm not a witch.

I'm not a witch.

Not "I am town" or "I'm not scum," but I'm not a witch.  In other words, you're third party.  Yep, you need to hang.
Logged
HMR stands for Hazardous Materials Requisition, not Horrible Massive Ruination, though I can understand how one could get confused.
God help us if we have to agree on pizza toppings at some point. There will be no survivors.

notquitethere

  • Bay Watcher
  • PIRATE
    • View Profile

Lenglon
NQT: I know this is going to sound crazy coming from someone who is already voting for Ottofar over pretty much the exact same reasons as you listed, but that's not a good case for why he is scum, it's merely a case for why he is a liability.
Well there is also the fact that Ottofar is pushing a case that makes absolutely no sense:

Ottofar
You say tunneling is a scumtell and yet you keep doing it. You think I'm a serial killer because I haven't claimed survivor! Earth to Ottofar, that makes no sense whatsoever. Wanting to stay alive is good play for town: even if you still get lynched fighting your corner shines a light on the bullshit nature of the cases against you. You realise that your case boils down to "you're not rolling over and dying therefore you're a serial killer". I know you're not amazing at this, but surely you can do better than that.

Vector
Instead? Why the focus on instead?
Why the focus on the form rather than the substance of my case? How do you act when you're about to be mislynched?

ZU
So you see nothing problematic in Ottofar's continued tunneling? In the fact that he hasn't looked at anyone else in the whole day despite the extensions? Do you agree with Ottofar's reasoning that wanting to stay alive = serial killer? Why are you defending him?

Toaster
I explicitly said I wasn't 3rd party, you even quoted where I said it. I'm going to give you one last chance as it's still possible that you're being as dense as your namesake. Unless you have a crumb tray where your rational faculties ought be you'll know exactly what I was saying when I told you to think back to your previous witches games and reflect on what I was doing early on this game. I'm calling you out as confirmed scum if you don't see what I'm saying. You're allowed to disbelieve me but you should at least stop misrepresenting what I'm telling you.

Dariush
I note you've spewed out another post where you don't address my comprehensive takedown of your bullshit case. This isn't looking good for you buster.
Logged

zombie urist

  • Bay Watcher
  • [NOT_LIVING]
    • View Profile

Its problematic but there's an easy way to solve that. I do agree that excessively trying to stay alive is scummy. I don't remember defending him.  :-\

Ottofar: Who's scummy besides NQT?
NQT: Who's the scummiest person who isn't currently voting you?

I know there's some stuff I'm not addressing but I'm going to sleep.  :-X
Logged
The worst part of all of this is that Shakerag won.

notquitethere

  • Bay Watcher
  • PIRATE
    • View Profile

Zombie Urist
I think it's bizarre that so many of you seem to think that one can want stay alive too much. In a previous game (the second BM I was in) I shortened the game and died thinking that my flip would seal the case against (if I recall correctly) TheWetSheep, but it turned out scum was Tiruin who ended up winning. We're supposed to try and win the game and as we cannot trust our compatriots to act sensibly, we must try and stay alive. To put it another way: I cannot know for certain that anyone else is scum until they flip, but I know that I'm town so far better that the scummiest other player that I can get lynched get lynched. But you seem to think that there is a time and a place for town to stop questioning the cases against them and lie down and die. Are you saying that if you get put under a lot of pressure as town, the right thing to do is throw your hands up and give up? I'm not sure there's a charitable way of reading what you seem to be saying.

To answer your question, I'm still a bit suspicious of Leafsnail. He's the only person not to have claimed his name and profession. On it's own that's not enough to lynch someone but it is a bit eyebrow raising. He's also said he thinks we're on track for a mislynch and that we need to actively select our lynch target but he isn't voting Ottofar nor has he entreated others to vote for Vector (someone nobody else is voting). Again, this isn't anywhere near enough to lynch someone over but cumulatively alarm bells are ringing. I know that when I've played as scum I've denounced the case against the townsperson about to be lynched without really going out of my way to stop it from happening.

Also, I'm suspicious of Tiruin and Toonyman, who in case people weren't paying attention have both just claimed 3rd-party. They might still be pro-town, but I know from experience that Tiruin is adept at misrepresenting the aims of a 3rd party role:

while my motivation is benevolent, it isn't in directly culling the witches from this town
my character does not want to witch-hunt (not that I'm going to listen to him).

Toaster, Ottofar-- your NQT=3rd party, we should lynch 3rd party case against me looks even worse now that two players have actually claimed 3rd party (something I have resolutely not done). I'm guessing because you're both in tunnel-mode that you missed this. Are you going to try and lynch them too?

Toonyman, Tiruin, if your goal isn't to find witches then what it is it? We've all been speaking as if there were town, scum and then 3rd parties, but a cursory glance at the list of previous roles proves the lie in this: there are town aligned roles that might have slightly different goals (Villager, Vigilante, Inquisitor, Miller), and anti-town roles such as Witches and unknown malicious third-parties (probably something like elves or wizards, but a wee bit different).
Logged

Dariush

  • Bay Watcher
  • I don't think I !!am!!, therefore I !!am!! not
    • View Profile

Link 1: includes Dariush's vote shifting to NQT, so these were the final deciding factors.
1) lazy scumhunting - context shows that NQT is trying to get the people with scattered votes to focus on one person that isn't NQT. - meaning NQT is panicking (but your accusation is that he isn't scumhunting, so I'll count this as both)
2) OMGUS - really? you are counting an OMGUS? ok.
Link 2: timestamp shows that this was before link 1
3) "Soooo first you spewed a bunch of WIFOM about fakeclaims and now you're shamelessly blackmailing the town, while continuing to desperately paint yourself as town since the beginning and annoy everyone with your roleplaying. You're such a worthless shitstain, NQT." - looks like NQT is panicing.
Unlinked: I'm willing to assume that these would be timestamped after your vote, meaning they weren't the deciding factor, but they do still count as part of your case.
4) "desperately trying to shift the attention from himself and onto lurkers without actually presenting any even half-valid arguments" - NQT is panicking
5) "since accusing lurkers requires zero effort" - NQT isn't scumhunting.
6) "painting the lurkers as guaranteed scum, thus forgoing any scumhunting at all" - NQT isn't scumhunting

ok, so it boils down to: NQT is panicking, isn't scumhunting, and made an OMGUS vote. (and it seems pretty clear to me the the first one of those three is what triggered the second and third, hence why I counted it as just the one tell)

all three of those are simple facts, and completely true. now then, knowing what you know of NQT, do those make him scum? I would have expected different behavior from scum-NQT than this, does this behavior match up with scum-NQT to you? or does it match up with panicked-and-frustrated-but-not-scum-NQT's behavior Mr. Person-who-has-played-with-NQT-several-times-and-doesn't-respect-his-playstyle-and-skill-level?

I agree, NQT needs to get back to proper scumhunting. However, unlike Ottofar, he previous was doing a decent job at it, and he has provided an ample amount of material to get a read of him from. I'm far more willing to give someone who was actively hunting earlier a chance to get started again than someone who has never been hunting in the first place.
Your 'analysis' is stunning, and not in a good way. It literally stunned me, so I had to sit here and stare at your words in an attempt to understand how can someone be so stupid, blind and wrong. I am going to give you the benefit of doubt and assume that you're inexperienced scum extremely badly covering your teammate's ass. The alternative - that you're simply that bad and willing to defend someone else to such an extent with faulty arguments - is too horrifying to ponder on.

At the moment of the first arguments in the second link (which was chronologically the first) NQT was under no special attention. I don't think he has a single vote on him at that time. He was asked about being a female carpenter and he immediatly said that if he was fakeclaiming, he would have chosen a better claim. If he was panicking, he was doing so from nearly the beginning of the game. And in any case, how does this not make him scum? You admit he is not scumhunting. So, to sum your words up, he is a lazy, panicking piece of shit that hasn't done anything in the entire game except be scummy and try to shift attention onto lurkers, and for those reasons he should not be lynched. I don't give a fuck about his meta (he sucks regardless of his alignment), but I do give a fuck that he's been dropping scumtells like I can't even think of a good analogy.

I am honestly disappointed in you, Lenglon. After Revolution I expected you to do much better. Or maybe your skill level is dependent upon alignment...

Toony, let's play a game. I will guess what you're doing and then you will say how close to the mark I am. Okay? Well, I can't hear you and you can't read this post until I, well, post it, so I'll assume you agree. Okay, here is my guess: You saw that your scumbuddy is the leader in votes this close to day end and you decided to tie the votes for a non-existent reason to save him. You didn't explain why you consider OF more scummy (or scummy at all, since I don't remember you addressing him at all) and you didn't explain what those opinion-changing chips might be. You haven't asked OF any questions, so he has no way to defend himself. Thus, you have a tie-making vote you put there without any explanation and self-admittedly aren't planning to shift anywhere. Okay, I'm done. Was I correct? (hint: yes, I was)
Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 84