Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 70

Author Topic: The Lonely Prince: He Who Shall Serve  (Read 193154 times)

Griffionday

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile

To recap:
Jim Groovester
NQT & Webadict
Leafsnail, Zombie Urist, Toaster & Tiruin
I'm sorry for letting this get to the point where this was the least confusing way of answering all the questions.  Vector is right I need to work on only paying attention to what matters.  Please let me know if I missed any questions that you still want answered.
Logged

Jim Groovester

  • Bay Watcher
  • 1P
    • View Profile

Man, I'm sorry--it seems like a lot of people are having trouble getting into this.  Is there anything, as a mod, that I could do to help you out?  Please feel free to let me know.

More frequent vote counts might help.

Every day or every other page (at 15 posts per page), whichever comes first, seems to work well.

Hrmm... I agree with Webadict to a degree in that town people can be anti-town (zoomzoll in MasonsMafiaHackers) but not really here.

This is undeniably true, but are they worth lynching over scum suspects?

Because he was following up with other players and calling out scummy moves on their part.

Did he follow up on other players when they neglected to answer questions he directed at them?

To get a clearer picture of how my case is being seen by others: does my case sound about as bad as Webadict's against Jim?

Oh my God this is hilarious.
Logged
I understood nothing, contributed nothing, but still got to win, so good game everybody else.

notquitethere

  • Bay Watcher
  • PIRATE
    • View Profile

Princess Griffionday
To answer your accusation: I tend to ask myself "Is the player in question acting in the most likely way town would, or how scum would?"  Hence the reason I go to such lengths to engineer situations where a difference could occur.  In the example you're referring too I'm saying that town would be more likely to attempt to be in control of a line of questions that they are asking (so they can be more sure of what the answer is telling them) while scum might be more willing to allow a question to be dictated by the answer as they're not interested in the read they'll be getting, but rather being seen to ask and answer questions.
I can see your reasoning here, but you surely see that it's not exactly an iron-tight way of catching scum. I think 'being in control of the line of question' is a bit of a wooly concept. Am I in control now with this question? Or are you in control merely by the fact that I'm answering you? It'd be interesting to see you unpack this idea a bit.

That being said, an answer that showed that you had read and gotten something from my answer would have done a good deal.  If your answer wasn't directly structured and formatted like the verbatim win-con, and showed enough editing that scum couldn't pull all the essential terms from your claim it would have satisfied me that you had actually read my answer.  The fact that you almost directly quoted seemed to indicate that my answer should have been very odd and strange to you; so the question to me was why didn't you press me on that?
No, your wincon answer wasn't that odd. You just paraphrased a bit more (or else, made it up because at the time you hadn't asked Vector for the town wincon). Your scum hunting technique is really bizarre. You seem to be saying that you deliberately make scumslips in order to vote people who don't pick up on them. I think you're just making post hoc justifications.

Princess Solifuge
I'm not unsympathetic to complaints against a long Day 1 with little of substance. Still, it behooves us to make the most of our vote in the day. Right now there are three points of interest, to me at least:

1. Several players serially lurk but haven't been in a hurricane or moving house —check ZU's lurker tracker— is this a sign of scumminess?
2. Lady Griffionday has spent almost the entirety of the game in a back-and-forth conversation with me, arguing that I am scum because, essentially, I didn't pick up on her scumtells. Is this a good way of scumhunting?
3. The once united trio of Princesses Wuba, Groovester and Leafsnail, previously after Lady Griffionday for her weak case, have turned on one another, just a moment ago. Do you think it's plausible that all of these ladies could be town Princesses?
Logged

webadict

  • Bay Watcher
  • Former King of the Mafia
    • View Profile

Did you go insane at some point?

I'm seriously starting to wonder.
Haha, no. You're just so incredibly obvious is all. I don't know if anyone else really sees it, but you have really fallen in terms of scumplay. Probably because it's a lot harder to hide it while being a princess. Usually, you can hide behind a rather aggressive wall, but it's a little harder now that you can't be as aggressive as usual. Oh well, what can you do? (The answer is try.)

First, show where the justification is flimsy.

Alright, let's start with the part where you think it's a good idea to lynch players you don't suspect.

Let's also stop there, since that's all that needs to be said.

Because in a game where the town win by finding scum and lynching them, it should be really obvious that spending lynches on players you don't suspect is counterproductive.
Haha, that's all? Man, I was hoping you'd make an actual case. Yours is just so droll. You're not even trying.

Why? That's the question you haven't answered. I have answered why I'd rather lynch Griffionday Today rather than having to deal with him later. If she doesn't pick up the slack, she's a burden on the Town. If she's enough of a burden on the Town, then she's basically scum. At BEST, she's a meatshield. At worst, she's actively killing Town. I'd rather have someone that makes a good argument.

But, I guess the point is moot now as I can finally vote you. You've finally started maybe trying? Because I haven't seen anything like that yet. Maybe next post? Because this game isn't fun when you're playing against drones.

Second, please explain in greater detail how it is scummy. I don't believe it is self-explanatory to everyone watching, especially since you pointed out that no justification at all would be valid. Therefore, there must be a point where it begins to be scummy.

It provides an easy cover for scum.

Instead of scumhunting, they can just vote for people with bad cases! All under the altruistic guise of critiquing them under threat of lynch.

Truly there's no possible way any member of the scum team would possibly abuse that to avoid engaging in the more difficult task of pretending to scumhunt.
You think you were scumhunting? What'd you do, RV RangerCado and then sit around telling him how bad he was? Oh wait, that actually happened, and you haven't really done anything since. You complained the game was slow, didn't fix that. You told people that you were allowed to ask stupid pointless questions, while also complaining about RP. So... Yeah, that's your game summary right now. Pretty depressing. That's why I think you're scum. Because you're just not participating. You're activelurking. RVS questions when people are voting for real. RVSing RangerCado and not really caring about the results of that. I'm actually glad you're voting me, because then you'll get a billion more chances to show everyone you're scum.

See why I want you to try now? Because you haven't in the two weeks we've been playing. But, hey, now's your chance! Feel free to stand up at any point! Literally no one is stopping you.

Additionally, I hadn't had a scum suspect until recently, so I'd rather have used my vote on trying to make a player I didn't think was scum do better. Of course, you should know that, you asked me that question! But, alas, I don't believe you cared about the answer. In fact, Toaster's the one who ended up resolving the answer. You... just sorta asked more RVS questions.

Why do you believe it is acceptable to allow bad cases in any game at all?

Because bad cases and punishing them is not the point of the game of mafia.

Who do you believe is Town?

I haven't seen anything in this game from any player that makes me think they're town since everybody's activity has been dismal and their scumhunting underwhelming. For the most part, my opinion on everybody is neutral.

You're scummy though.
Really? Ah, see, that's where you and I must play different games. To me, NQT, Griffionday, Toaster, and Solifuge (though, she's the least likely) are Town. I can understand why you'd think no one is participating. It probably comes from your own mindset. You haven't participated, so you feel like no one else has. So, it's not surprising that you don't have a single clue who is town or who is scum. Mostly because you just don't need to care.

Maybe you want to try now, hmm?

Why do you believe this is about new players at all?

Believe what about new players?
Me trying to improve Griffionday's case isn't because he's new. It's because he's playing the game. This isn't about helping a new player at all. I'll help anyone. Heck, hopefully you start trying, so I at least get a challenge. Maybe I'll help you do that? Or, maybe, you'll sit around doing nothing. Doing something for two weeks tends to make it a pattern, I hear.

Overall, I have this to say:

You haven't done anything special. This includes scumhunting.
You should try. Seriously, please let me think you're trying.
:D <-- My face, seeing Jim not try as he votes me with little provided reasoning or explanation.
>:) <-- My face, when I get a competent opponent.

Current face = :D

Hrmm... I agree with Webadict to a degree in that town people can be anti-town (zoomzoll in MasonsMafiaHackers) but not really here.

This is undeniably true, but are they worth lynching over scum suspects?
Let me run a quick function, just really quick.

listOfGames = allGames.find(stupidDay1MistakesThatScrewOverLylo);
print(listOfGames.contains(allGames.containsPlayer(Org));

run

true

Stupid Day 1 mistakes that are never fixed will wreck havoc later in the game. This is because suspicions raise as the Days go by, and when that one player who made such a stupid mistake on Day 1 is still alive at Day 4, people think "Better lynch that girl!" If Griffionday is allowed to continue on, she'll be lynched anyway. I'm just trying to get her to change now, either with her own shift or with her own death. I kind of care which, actually, since I don't believe she's scum, but I'm willing to watch her die. My conscious will remain clean. Or empty. One of those two.

Regardless, please try harder. Or hard. Or even just try.

Webadict:
My goodness, Griffionday, you're not getting it.
Apparently not in the slightest.
To shove with full force is foolish.
Could we just go with that one in the future so I clearly know the whole case you're leveling against me all at once?

I do have one question though:
Why would I chainsaw defend NQT? She's doing just fine by letting you talk.
I've no idea WHY you would do it; but isn't the definition of chainsawing "pressuring someone with the purpose of getting them to unvote a third party"?  As in, pretty much exactly what you are doing?  So why ARE you chainsawing?
You were tunneling your target. You weren't listening to other people. You had a bad case. You had bad evidence. You fell into a trap. Overall, your case had too many holes, and it needed to be reevaluated. If you refused to change, you were going to be lynched, whether Today or maybe Day 2 or 3. The point is, you WERE going to get lynched by doing what you were doing.

And... Okay, I was unintentionally defending NQT, you got me there. But, the main reason wasn't because NQT was Town. There are plenty of cases on people I think are Town. The main reason was because your reasoning was flawed, and you were fighting as hard as you could to get people to see you were right. You shoved so hard that you tunneled past any information that might've led you to change your mind. Hopefully, you start a case with a more open view. You are free to pursue it to the ends of the Earth, but don't overlook the information in front of you.

Come on, girl, get it together. At least you're doing better than Jim Groovester. (He hasn't even tried the whole game.)
Logged

webadict

  • Bay Watcher
  • Former King of the Mafia
    • View Profile

Also, please prod Okami no Rei and Ottofar. They haven't posted in about 2 days.
Logged

Vector

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile

More frequent vote counts might help.

Every day or every other page (at 15 posts per page), whichever comes first, seems to work well.

People mostly aren't voting, but OK.


Also, please prod Okami no Rei and Ottofar. They haven't posted in about 2 days.

Ottofar is up for replace and I think that ONR just asked for one as well.  We'll probably have a long night as I look for replacements.
Logged
"The question of the usefulness of poetry arises only in periods of its decline, while in periods of its flowering, no one doubts its total uselessness." - Boris Pasternak

nonbinary/genderfluid/genderqueer renegade mathematician and mafia subforum limpet. please avoid quoting me.

pronouns: prefer neutral ones, others are fine. height: 5'3".

Vector

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile

VOTE COUNT

Okami no Rei
Leafsnail
Tiruin
Lenglon
Griffinpup - NotQuiteThere, Toaster
zombieurist -
Griffionday - Solifuge
notquitethere - Okami no Rei
Solifuge - Lenglon
Jim Groovester - Webadict
Ottofar
Toaster
Webadict - Leafsnail, JimGroovester

Not voting - Griffionday, griffinpup, zombie urist, Ottofar [needs replacement], Tiruin [hurricane]

Day end is scheduled for Thursday at 12:00 (-8 GMT).  Six requests for extension required.  One more extension available.
[/quote]
Logged
"The question of the usefulness of poetry arises only in periods of its decline, while in periods of its flowering, no one doubts its total uselessness." - Boris Pasternak

nonbinary/genderfluid/genderqueer renegade mathematician and mafia subforum limpet. please avoid quoting me.

pronouns: prefer neutral ones, others are fine. height: 5'3".

Toaster

  • Bay Watcher
  • Appliance
    • View Profile

Lenglon:
Lenglon snaps awake in her chair, rather thoroughly embarrassed at finding herself dozing in public. after spending several moments speaking to a servant in the room to find out what she missed, she returns to the discussion

Are there any take-away points in that block of RP?  The lack of paragraphs makes it unreadable.


Solifuge:
Also, so many extensions. I'm kind of waiting for Day 2, so we can have something concrete to go on. Can this be the last one please?))

I'm a crappy D1 player too and still recognize this as lazy as hell.


Griffionday:
To get a clearer picture of how my case is being seen by others: does my case sound about as bad as Webadict's against Jim?

Starting a case with a request for validation completely takes the teeth out of your attacks.

Toaster:
Griffionday: I tend to agree with the other cases on you that say your case on NQT sucks, but this in particular jumped out at me:

-snip-

Wait, what?

Are you saying you're dropping scum tells on purpose for him and you're expecting him to go after you on them, or he's not town?   Please tell me I'm misreading this, because as such it makes no damn sense.
You are not misreading that.

My goal was to test the validity of his scum-hunting through experiment; rather than just seeing what I felt of his cases as seems to be status quo.  I attempted to manufacture situations that I had more control over, to see if he was hunting or just trying to appear to be doing so.  As he did not press what I felt he should have (that is what I thought was ambiguous or scummy enough to warrant pressing on), I assumed that he was avoiding engagement.  Which I took as needlessly defensive.

Does that make more sense or less now?

Okay, I just wanted to be sure.

That idea is silly and ineffective.  Please refrain from doing it ever again, since at best, it gets nothing useful and at worst, it's a scum move.  (PersonA didn't respond to a point I made so she is clearly scum etc.)

In any case, you spend a lot of time talking and practically no time drawing conclusions, as evidenced by your lack of vote on anyone.  Who is scum?  Why?


Vector:  Prod request on Griffinpup.  Her last post was "extend" and nothing more, so that shouldn't count, IMO.


Wuba:  While I think I get your points on Jim, just so I'm clear, please list your top three or so scum picks in order.


NQT:
3. The once united trio of Princesses Wuba, Groovester and Leafsnail, previously after Lady Griffionday for her weak case, have turned on one another, just a moment ago. Do you think it's plausible that all of these ladies could be town Princesses?

Do you think they could all be town?  If not, who isn't?
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

PFP quick query

Webadict//Toaster: This caught my eye. You both saw nothing significantly scummy earlier before those notes there?



Lenglon:
Tiruin:I think RP makes for a very poor diversion, and that most of the gripe against it is nothing more than the desire to have people write posts that are easy to skim over and don't require properly reading them. I think it is useful for learning what emotion someone is feeling as they post, particularly when they switch to and from using RP.
(I love how you did a textual then a RP verse.)

Intriguing.

Could you say emotion plays, or is a definitive factor in scumhunting? When could you do so, and when could you generally excuse it?



Leafsnail: Small query.
@Jim: honestly, no. I don't think she's scum. It's too... convenient. I suspect both you and Leafsnail, but I can't prove anything just yet. Hence why I want her to make a better case. But, I can't make her do better, and I'm okay with lynching her if she doesn't want to. The point is that regardless, she's a liability to the town if she doesn't improve.

Maybe it sounds scummy, but allowing bad cases to exist is a far greater threat. Plus, I doubt I have the evidence to lynch the two of you. Leafsnail maybe, but I don't have the resources to do that right now. You I can deal with later.
unvote vote webadict.  What the hell are you doing?

There are two people you regard as scummy.  Yet instead of making any real efforr to sttack either of them you're just attacking their cases on someone.  And what's more, you're GOING ALONG WITH TWO PEOPLE YOU THINK ARE SCUM due to some vague policylynch bullshit.

Questions:
- Why are you voting for someome you think is town, even though you could swing the vote?
- If you're after policy lynch, wouldn't it be better to hit a lurker than somepne who is actually contributing?  My phone won't let me edit the bit below so it makes no sense.
- Why are you not attempting to lynch
The bolded part is contradictory to the essence of this post. Why would someone attack the person, and not their case? Is there something wrong with attacking someone's case?



Solifuge:
(([...]

Also, so many extensions. I'm kind of waiting for Day 2, so we can have something concrete to go on. Can this be the last one please?))
Why are you waiting for D2?

Why are you waiting for D2 when you could be committing to D1 and using it as a continuation?

What 'concrete' thing would be, if everything would be based on previous deeds?
Logged

Toaster

  • Bay Watcher
  • Appliance
    • View Profile

Tiruin:
Webadict//Toaster: This caught my eye. You both saw nothing significantly scummy earlier before those notes there?

Other than NQT's massive flipflop or Pup's extreme apathy, nothing major.
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.

Jim Groovester

  • Bay Watcher
  • 1P
    • View Profile

try harder nub

Okay.

That's not 'okay' as in, I admit to being wrong, I will start trying harder, it's 'okay' as in, a lazy dismissal.

Why?

I have explained why. If you weren't so interested in the four course meal comprised of poopoo de wubadub you might have noticed it.

That's the genteel way of saying that you're too busy eating the shit you're full of to notice any points beside your own.

Second, please explain in greater detail how it is scummy. I don't believe it is self-explanatory to everyone watching, especially since you pointed out that no justification at all would be valid. Therefore, there must be a point where it begins to be scummy.

It provides an easy cover for scum.

Instead of scumhunting, they can just vote for people with bad cases! All under the altruistic guise of critiquing them under threat of lynch.

Truly there's no possible way any member of the scum team would possibly abuse that to avoid engaging in the more difficult task of pretending to scumhunt.
You think you were scumhunting? What'd you do, RV RangerCado and then sit around telling him how bad he was? Oh wait, that actually happened, and you haven't really done anything since. You complained the game was slow, didn't fix that. You told people that you were allowed to ask stupid pointless questions, while also complaining about RP. So... Yeah, that's your game summary right now. Pretty depressing. That's why I think you're scum. Because you're just not participating. You're activelurking. RVS questions when people are voting for real. RVSing RangerCado and not really caring about the results of that. I'm actually glad you're voting me, because then you'll get a billion more chances to show everyone you're scum.

See why I want you to try now? Because you haven't in the two weeks we've been playing. But, hey, now's your chance! Feel free to stand up at any point! Literally no one is stopping you.

Additionally, I hadn't had a scum suspect until recently, so I'd rather have used my vote on trying to make a player I didn't think was scum do better. Of course, you should know that, you asked me that question! But, alas, I don't believe you cared about the answer. In fact, Toaster's the one who ended up resolving the answer. You... just sorta asked more RVS questions.

This is not a response to the point I made.

I suppose in the absence of any reasonable response to something, you make a lot of noise and try to make a distraction.

Tell me, wubadub, that lynching people you don't suspect for having bad cases is not abusable by scum.

Why do you believe this is about new players at all?

Believe what about new players?
Me trying to improve Griffionday's case isn't because he's new. It's because he's playing the game. This isn't about helping a new player at all. I'll help anyone. Heck, hopefully you start trying, so I at least get a challenge. Maybe I'll help you do that? Or, maybe, you'll sit around doing nothing. Doing something for two weeks tends to make it a pattern, I hear.

This is also not a response to the question I had. Proof positive that you weren't actually interested in my answers, except as boxes of quotes that you can use to make lots of noise completely off-topic to their contents.

Why did I think responding to you would be a productive use of my time?

Wuba:  While I think I get your points on Jim, just so I'm clear, please list your top three or so scum picks in order.

You do?

What are they?

Is it more than just wubadub saying I've had a weak Day 1?
Logged
I understood nothing, contributed nothing, but still got to win, so good game everybody else.

webadict

  • Bay Watcher
  • Former King of the Mafia
    • View Profile

try harder nub

Okay.

That's not 'okay' as in, I admit to being wrong, I will start trying harder, it's 'okay' as in, a lazy dismissal.
Doesn't this just prove you're not trying?

Why?

I have explained why. If you weren't so interested in the four course meal comprised of poopoo de wubadub you might have noticed it.

That's the genteel way of saying that you're too busy eating the shit you're full of to notice any points beside your own.
No, you really haven't. You're simply just ignoring all the counterpoints I've made. And that's giving your points more credit than their worth. Which is basically nothing, because you're still not trying.

It provides an easy cover for scum.

Instead of scumhunting, they can just vote for people with bad cases! All under the altruistic guise of critiquing them under threat of lynch.

Truly there's no possible way any member of the scum team would possibly abuse that to avoid engaging in the more difficult task of pretending to scumhunt.
You think you were scumhunting? What'd you do, RV RangerCado and then sit around telling him how bad he was? Oh wait, that actually happened, and you haven't really done anything since. You complained the game was slow, didn't fix that. You told people that you were allowed to ask stupid pointless questions, while also complaining about RP. So... Yeah, that's your game summary right now. Pretty depressing. That's why I think you're scum. Because you're just not participating. You're activelurking. RVS questions when people are voting for real. RVSing RangerCado and not really caring about the results of that. I'm actually glad you're voting me, because then you'll get a billion more chances to show everyone you're scum.

See why I want you to try now? Because you haven't in the two weeks we've been playing. But, hey, now's your chance! Feel free to stand up at any point! Literally no one is stopping you.

Additionally, I hadn't had a scum suspect until recently, so I'd rather have used my vote on trying to make a player I didn't think was scum do better. Of course, you should know that, you asked me that question! But, alas, I don't believe you cared about the answer. In fact, Toaster's the one who ended up resolving the answer. You... just sorta asked more RVS questions.

This is not a response to the point I made.

I suppose in the absence of any reasonable response to something, you make a lot of noise and try to make a distraction.

Tell me, wubadub, that lynching people you don't suspect for having bad cases is not abusable by scum.
So, your point is that it's abusable by scum? So is LITERALLY EVERYTHING. I can't deny that it is abusable by scum. I could point to anything and claim it's abusable by scum. Lynches. Reasoning. Actions. Claiming. Please, name me something that isn't abusable by scum.

However, you're refusing to acknowledge my reasoning behind it, which you claim is flimsy, yet you don't show how. So, how is my reasoning flimsy? This is WHY things aren't abusable. If you don't even bother to look at the reasoning behind an action, how can you judge the action itself?

Or, we can play the "ignorance" game. You'll simply ignore all of my posts until something. Which is fine with me, because I am much louder than you.

Plus, it's an additional point for you to discuss, which I'm assuming you'll never get to, as you're still not trying.

Me trying to improve Griffionday's case isn't because he's new. It's because he's playing the game. This isn't about helping a new player at all. I'll help anyone. Heck, hopefully you start trying, so I at least get a challenge. Maybe I'll help you do that? Or, maybe, you'll sit around doing nothing. Doing something for two weeks tends to make it a pattern, I hear.

This is also not a response to the question I had. Proof positive that you weren't actually interested in my answers, except as boxes of quotes that you can use to make lots of noise completely off-topic to their contents.

Why did I think responding to you would be a productive use of my time?
It is a response to your statement. You said, and I quote:
I suppose I should add, if you're that concerned about getting new players to learn, go IC a Beginner's Mafia.
To which I responded, AND I QUOTE:
Why do you believe this is about new players at all?
TO WHICH YOU RESPONDED, AND I QUOTE:
Believe what about new players?
To which you have quoted. This is, in fact, a response to your statement. And question. But, nice try. Oh wait, no, it's not. Because you're still not trying. Please, Jim. You just don't care. Just admit it for everyone, so that they can slowly understand your level of apathy.

Wuba:  While I think I get your points on Jim, just so I'm clear, please list your top three or so scum picks in order.

You do?

What are they?

Is it more than just wubadub saying I've had a weak Day 1?
It's not a weak Day 1. It's a coasting Day 1. You're doing as little work as possible to get by. Even your attack on me is pathetic. You're still not trying. And every post you post is just proving it. Girl, you're still not getting it. Anybody that pays the slightest attention to you should notice how little work you're putting in.

In fact, look back at Jim's post history. She hasn't attempted to find an adequate lynch target the entire time. Even when she voted me, she put zero effort into trying to defend her vote. She just doesn't care.

Webadict//Toaster: This caught my eye. You both saw nothing significantly scummy earlier before those notes there?
Nope. But, I wasn't paying as much attention as I should've been. So, I figured I'd get more involved. Now, I feel like I have a much better grasp on the game.

Wuba:  While I think I get your points on Jim, just so I'm clear, please list your top three or so scum picks in order.
Jim, Leafsnail. I don't have a third at the moment. It'd be silly to think too far ahead, anyway.

Also, do you actually get my points? Because I don't think I can just take your word for that. If you did, you'd at least implore Jim to try harder, regardless of whether you believe he's scum or not.
Logged

Leafsnail

  • Bay Watcher
  • A single snail can make a world go extinct.
    • View Profile

Policy lynch? I think you're using that word wrong. I'm not proposing a policy lynch. In fact, I would very much not like to lynch her. But, I refuse to let her continue making a crappy case, and if I have to lynch her, then oh well, I guess she might learn something from it.
Lynching someone because they're playing badly is a form of policy lynch.  I don't really care what you call it, though.

But, I'm assuming you don't really care about that. I'm thinking big picture here, aren't I? Let's stick with the little picture. Little picture (okay, maybe slightly smaller picture) is this: She isn't lynched, but she doesn't learn. She is kept alive until some Day in the future, where people will think "Hey, why didn't we lynch her Day 1 again?" And then she'll be lynched. Then, she'll have accomplished nothing, we'll have lost a Day later in the game, where Days are far more important, and she'll have learned her lesson way later.

The littler picture is that I might be wrong, and I'd rather not end up doubting myself later, so Today is a great Day to remove both a player that is making a poor case and appearing scummy to everyone.


The littlest picture is that I'm trying to get her to do something productive Today. If she doesn't, then she gets lynched, regardless of how town I believe her to be.
This is ridiculous.  To avoid wasting a lynch on Griffionday, you are going to waste a lynch on Griffionday.  Days aren't really "more important" later in the game, incidentally.  It can be easier to hit scum during later days due to more information, but it's better to hit scum as early as possible.  Because if you lynch scum day one it reduces the mafia's rolepower in the night throughout the entire game, and it also gives you the possibility of associative tells on all future days.  Thus it is madness to deliberately waste the day one lynch on someone you believe to be town.

I don't know where you got the idea that I was being vague about it. Indeed, I've told her multiple times what would allow me to unvote her and allow her to be a functioning member of the Town. I don't believe I've been vague in explaining this either. If anything, I was simply not asked.
I'm saying vague because you're being evasive as hell and refusing to admit you are pushing a policy lynch.

As for voting a lurker... really? Man, YOU'RE a lurker. Your posts are below average in just about all the important aspects. If it makes you feel better, I'll certainly vote you. I've got no problem with that. I have never not had a point to voting as I do, but voting someone for lurking would be stupidly lame. I'd rather they got modkilled. Which is simply a better option.
I haven't been playing too well this game, mainly due to access issues.  But you know what?  I think I've contributed more to the town than you have.  Because voting for people I think are scum.  Fuck, I'd say the same about Griffionday.  Any attempt to find scum is better than what you are doing.

I don't think lurkers will be modkilled in this game.


Now for the third point... The easiest answer is that there isn't enough evidence to do that. The best answer is that there isn't enough GOOD evidence to do it. I can certainly bring up your shoddy posting, contribution, understanding, and overall play, but you'll coast by making minimal effort until at least Tomorrow, posting things such as "PFP busy cant answrr" which I can't verify or counter, kill me Tonight, and then pretend nothing happened. Or WIFOM it. Or just make the Town retarded, as usual.
I have never seen you take such a ridiculously defeatist attitude before.  If you think I'm scum who will kill you tonight then you should be pushing to lynch me as hard as possible.  Unless somehow lynching a town player will allow the others players in the game to lynch me??

The point is that I'd rather I fixed a problem we're having now that will continue to reoccur while I'm still alive to do it. I used to think this game was winnable by yourself. But it's not. No matter what team, alignment, or role you have in a game, you need to rely on other players. The players I need to rely on just happen to be the Town. And if they can't shape up their actions, then I wasn't going to win with flawless arguments anyway.
You could try leading by example, eg by voting for someone you think is a mafia member.

Honestly, your posts are baffling me.  It feels exactly like something you would write in the mafia chat.  "Griffionday is making bad arguments, seems like a good mislynch candidate!"
Logged

Vector

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile

This is correct.  Modkills will be passed out only for rules infractions and truly drastic replacement situations; this particular game prefers freezing and replacement over modkills for, well, a lot of reasons.
Logged
"The question of the usefulness of poetry arises only in periods of its decline, while in periods of its flowering, no one doubts its total uselessness." - Boris Pasternak

nonbinary/genderfluid/genderqueer renegade mathematician and mafia subforum limpet. please avoid quoting me.

pronouns: prefer neutral ones, others are fine. height: 5'3".

Leafsnail

  • Bay Watcher
  • A single snail can make a world go extinct.
    • View Profile

Ultimately webadict is playing less like someone looking for scum and more like some kind of self-appointed Post Critic.  It seems like some kind of audacious mafia strategy, as if he's hoping that he can beat the apathetic town simply by undermining everyone else.

Hrmm... I agree with Webadict to a degree in that town people can be anti-town (zoomzoll in MasonsMafiaHackers) but not really here. Also Webadict doesn't seem to have a case on Jim.
OTOH Jim's vote on Web was awfully speedy after LS's.
Is webadict mafia, though?

The other person I pursuing a line of inquiry with was Tiruin; who has been having difficulty posting with any frequency.  I did excuse myself from finding other lines of inquiry to follow while waiting for her to return (the tunneling I was referring to) because I felt I was getting something on my other line of inquiry.  This is of course poor play.

As to the other point, as Webadict showed, it is completely legal for scum to ask for the town wincon; so scum having the town wincon isn't impossible.
I think you're still not quite grasping what I'm saying, but given webadict's actions I think you're probably town and I don't want to waste any more time with this discussion.

The bolded part is contradictory to the essence of this post. Why would someone attack the person, and not their case? Is there something wrong with attacking someone's case?
Not at all.  However, there is something wrong with only attacking someone's case and not their person if you believe that person is scum (because that means you're not trying to get them lynched).  In that case, you should be trying to demonstrate that person is scum.

The fact that he was going along with the case he was attacking at the time only makes his actions more baffling.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 70