NQT: (notice the bold. Maybe you'll respond to me this time.)
I really don't see how it could be viewed as communication.
Yes you can. Next time you lie, at least try to make it a good one.
Hmm... I can see why on reflection what I said could be seen in that light.
Griffpup
No wonder I missed your questions-- you didn't embolden my name! I'm a busy man, I can't be reading every wall of quotes in a game that rests on analysing results and not nebulous reads.
So you admit to not reading posts without you name
BOLDED in them?
Regardless, what would you suggest someone do when they see potential communication? Should they just completely ignore it?
But what I really want an answer to is:
NQT:
Also, why would you SPECIFICALLY POINT OUT A STRATEGY FOR HOW SCUM SHOULD ACT WHEN THEY DOUBLE UP ON TEAMS?
Which you conveniently forgot to mention. Let me make one thing clear.
I DON'T REALLY CARE ABOUT THE REST OF THE CONTENT OF THAT POST. STOP DEFLECTING MY QUESTIONS WITH IT. WHY DID YOU INCLUDE A VIABLE SCUM STRATEGY IN YOUR POST?
I really don't see how it could be viewed as communication. In playing a game without a private communication channel, spies are under conditions of existential despair: no matter what they hope they cannot rely on their fellows to interpret their actions correctly, they cannot rely on the other person to downvote or upvote a mission, to sabotage or lay low. They are adrift, abandoned. No, I was merely talking about the previous game and the advantage we have over the old spies.
I read the questions you quoted, then read this paragraph, read the questions you quoted again, then read the paragraph again. You know what I noticed? You didn't answer a single one of the questions you quoted. Now let's try this again.
STOP DEFLECTING MY QUESTIONS, AND ANSWER THEM.
Even if the spies saw it as a viable strategy, what hope would a spy-NQT have that the other spies would read between the lines and act on the advice? None!
I'd prefer to answer the questions directed to me, as opposed to you answering your own questions. The answer to this question, is in fact, some. The fact that two people independently found this attempt at communication demonstrates the possibility of "spies reading between he lines."
So you're OK with putting 2 untrustworthy people on the team, but don't want anything to do with the person that put them there? Why?
So what information did you get about the trustworthiness of Dariush from the failure of the mission you put together?
Sorry, what? Which people were you talking about? The first mission passed so at the time you and Nerjin weren't particularly untrustworthy. Now that that mission failed, you, Nerjin and Remuthra have gained scum points in my eyes. You're each 33-100% scum.
Your realize that the answers to these questions are in the POST YOU QUOTED, right? You literally had to delete the very sentences that answer your question to quote the exact section you did. This is manipulation of quoted posts and a blatant evasion of the question.
Dariush is out until I know more about the trustworthiness of Nerjin and Griffpup. Ranger has requested replacement so probably isn't paying attention to the game. That leaves Remuthra as our fourth man. Does this sound like an acceptable team?
So you're OK with putting 2 untrustworthy people on the team, but don't want anything to do with the person that put them there? Why?
Damn, you make a point about the unanimousness-- ultimately, we gain information about the trustworthiness of Dariush even if he's not on the team,
So what information did you get about the trustworthiness of Dariush from the failure of the mission you put together?
I bolded the pertinent parts. I didn't want you to be "too busy" to read them.
Did you ever respond to these posts with anything other then a vague "I'm busy"?
In what situation? The one now or after a mission? Because I'll have a lot of ground to work for if I get to pick. >_>
And I've noted that you aren't still making note of what recently happened, NQT :/
NQT
EBWOP-- I meant Remuthra as the obvious suspect (I mix up the players in my head just as I always conflate Deathsword with Toaster), but frankly if there was only one scum on the first mission there's good reason to lie low so in my mind Nerjin and Griffpup are almost equally as suspicious.
Yeah? Why @underlined part. Also, how is your reasoning making sense when you prod out Nerjin and Griffinpup? Usually, you also include yourself with a self-conflicting statement that puts everyone equally at suspicion, but then you prod everyone else.
What's up, my leader?
NQT kneels down in the ashes of his breakfast, howls up into the rain, crying "NOOOOOO!!!" as the camera slowly pans up and out.
Okay, thinking about this logically-- there was either one, two or three scum on this last mission (my bet is one as there was only one sabotage vote and no way to confer), Griffpup is an obvious suspect but we can't rule out the possibility of scum lying low on the first mission. Tiruin and TheWetSheep get moderate town points for downvoting the mission.
Who do you think you'll pick for the next mission Griffpup, and why?
Why is he any different from Griffinpup, who wasn't even on the team? Why'd you mix up their names?
Why do I and TWS get town points, sir? Could you explain that?
And you "forgot" to answer this question.
Tir
uin: Sorry for always spelling your name wrong. Does it really bug you that much?
Author
Topic: Revolution II - The Fires of Rebellion: Game Over! (Read 65474 times)