Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] 23 24 ... 70

Author Topic: The Lonely Prince: He Who Shall Serve  (Read 193353 times)

zombie urist

  • Bay Watcher
  • [NOT_LIVING]
    • View Profile

@jim sometimes, like in the example i posted. dont really think so here
@web in response to toaster what hapend to griffday?
@ls dunno i never could really read him
@grifday im asking for summary bc i dont inderstand the points ypu are making

pfp
Logged
The worst part of all of this is that Shakerag won.

Toaster

  • Bay Watcher
  • Appliance
    • View Profile

Wuba (and Jim):
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.

Let me see if I get this straight- this post is where it clicked for me.  The post prior of yours I was about ready to vote you because your lead-in was bananas.

Basically, you suspect Jim because he, in your opinion:

RVed Ranger then pushed a weak case
Didn't do anything else
Voted over you for a bad reason
When pressed on the vote, gave a poor rationalization

Am I correct?


Jim:  Web has ceased to vote Griffionday.  What does that do to your case on him?
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.

webadict

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

Lynching someone because they're playing badly is a form of policy lynch.  I don't really care what you call it, though.
Alright, let's use this definition of policy lynch. I wanted a policy lynch. Now what? There's still no reason to allow bad play. I am allowed to attack a player's case with the threat of a lynch, as that case is a threat to the Town, just the same. I don't care if you're Town or scum, having a bad case is not okay. The same goes for Jimgirl up there. At least you're trying now. Finally! All I wanted was a brain.

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.
Alright, I want to make one point clear. Days are BY DESIGN more important later in the game. A Day that is lylo is INFINITELY more important than Day 1. I can name several reasons why this is so, if you want to argue.

Now that that's been cleared up, I'll disagree with your last point. It is not madness to deliberately waste a Day 1 lynch. As proof, Org was an example of a great policy lynch. Why? Because he was often times Town that screwed around so much that he eventually lynched during lylo in just about every game. Or he was scum and never lynched. Org was a drain on the Town, and he was useless.

As such, the point in this one is that while I believe Griffionday to be Town, many people will not. And if I'm dead, I'm not going to be there to prevent her lynching. So, I'd much rather I simply threatened her to do better. That way, I don't have to defend her. She'll hopefully be able to do it herself. And she'll hopefully bring about much better cases.

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.
Oh, really? I just prevented a lynch on a player I didn't want lynched, and hopefully made Griffionday to play better. What have you done again? Voted someone you think was scum? Oh boy, I'm doing that too. So, I can say for certain that I'm still doing more than you.

Again, you're wrong. If a player plays better, then I have done more than enough, regardless of what you think. Not only that, but your point is flawed in that according to your very definition, I have done, at the very least, AT LEAST AS GOOD AS YOU. Outlogicked? Good, then we're even for the policy lynch garbage you're trying to pin to me. See how this doesn't get anywhere? No, I doubt you do.

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??
Oh my God, no you did not.

This game is the entire reason why I do not believe in the Town. That game was handed to them. On a silver platter. And they screwed it up.

Because of that, I never fully trusted the Town to do a single thing. So, I do not want to see bad play happening right in front of me. Because of this, I have no doubt in your ability to mentally retard the Town. Don't even try.

Also, I was busy on a vacation until recently. I even mentioned it in the post you freaked out over.
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.
Those resources happened to be time. Plus, you were pretty uneventful until recently, and didn't need as much evidence to point out how terrible you were playing. Now, you're trying, and I applaud that.

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!"
I could also tell them what they're doing wrong, directly. That seems to work better, and is actually LESS scummy than being indirect about it.

Now, this second part, I'm going to need explained to me.

You're saying that my posts are something I would write into mafiachat (Just an fyi, I would never, ever write that, because that's nothing like me, but let's assume the message is similar [I'd never write that same message either, but again, assume]) However, I'm telling everyone... in the thread, mind you... that Griffionday is playing poorly, and would make a good mislynch candidate. I then, in the thread, tell everyone that I don't believe Griffionday is scum. All while telling Griffionday what he should do to make himself look better. In the thread.

Because, that argument, right there, doesn't make any sense for a scum to do. I don't know where you might think that this would make good scumplay, but it wouldn't. This would make me the worst scum player that had ever existed. Because not only am I telling everyone he's a good mislynch target, I'm also telling him how to play better, so that he doesn't get mislynched later. I just... How do you guys even think of these things? How do you conclude people are scum without thinking like a scum? Where would you ever conclude that this would be a scum play to make?

If the answer to any of these isn't some sort of frozen over Hell, then I question your ability to properly find scum. ... But then again, I'm like some sort of WIFOM god, so I guess I can't even bother with that rationale... Curse my lack of foresight! I can't help that I play like scum regardless of my alignment, but oh well. I'm fine with being right this time.

Wuba (and Jim):
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.

Let me see if I get this straight- this post is where it clicked for me.  The post prior of yours I was about ready to vote you because your lead-in was bananas.

Basically, you suspect Jim because he, in your opinion:

RVed Ranger then pushed a weak case
Didn't do anything else
Voted over you for a bad reason
When pressed on the vote, gave a poor rationalization

Am I correct?
Those are, indeed, my main points. However, I'd change the second one to be about that he is voting me with bad reasoning. The technicalities are stupid to point out, so I'll just let it go.
Logged

Vector

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile

No vote change from last vote count.

Day end is scheduled for Thursday at 12:00 (-8 GMT), in 12 hours.  Six requests for extension required.  One more extension available.
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".

Jim Groovester

  • Bay Watcher
  • 1P
    • View Profile

Jim:  Web has ceased to vote Griffionday.  What does that do to your case on him?

Nothing, really. Instead of trying to dig stuff up on his suspects (myself and Leafsnail), he decided to vote somebody he didn't suspect (Griffionday) for stupid reasons. Up until that point he was sitting on his ass doing pretty much nothing.

Oh, but now that somebody voted him, and even better, he's tied for the lynch, oh, now he has motivation to play.

What do you call somebody who's passive, makes bad cases, and only kicks it into gear when he's in trouble? Scum.

Extend because the day ends tomorrow and I won't be around for the deadline and there are like a million people who could be voting but aren't because they're lazy fuckers. I'd rather not see the day extended if the tie gets broken.

I'll respond to wubadub tomorrow if the day doesn't end.
Logged
I understood nothing, contributed nothing, but still got to win, so good game everybody else.

zombie urist

  • Bay Watcher
  • [NOT_LIVING]
    • View Profile

ugh im not in the mood for extend webadict none of your votes explanatoons really make sense to me
Logged
The worst part of all of this is that Shakerag won.

Griffionday

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile

Extend, as once again I fail to find enough time to properly examine my case and my reads; or to reply to those to whom I should.

Web, thanks for the link: Dakarian, as always, finds his way to speak to the heart of the game.
There's three things to remember as town though:

1. The hunt is ALL!   Hunting scum is the highest priority.  A townie should be willing to do anything it takes if they truly believe that they will catch scum.

HOWEVER!

2. Any action you perform that is 'not pro-town' is a risk you place both on yourself (in getting lynched) and in the town (for wasting a lynch on yourself).  Any action that you perform that is distinctly anti-town runs the risk of destroying the very town you wished to save regardless of whether you actually locate scum.

3. Every action..EVERY SINGLE ACTION you do and do not do creates suspicion.  Unless the town is too weak (and thus half lost already), they will suspect you for everything you do no matter what.  Part of being a good townie is to expect and understand that suspicion (in fact, you should fear for your town if the suspicion never comes).  This goes triple should your actions not be 'pro-town'.

The result is this: if you know you aren't acting fully pro-town but you ARE after scum then that's fine, but you should be ready for the town's inevitable attack against you.  You should NOT expect them to simply accept your anti-town behavior as 'standard' since that's turning off their paranoia in order to give you a 'pass'.  That's the exact point where a good scum, even fully identified, will slip away.

Instead, you have a nasty balance.  You need to find a way to use your abilities to find scum while making sure you don't confuse the town OR disrupt its scumhunt.  No matter WHAT evidence you have, if you confuse the town or mess up its scumhunting attempts while they try to figure you out then the mafia will slip out.  The best way is to be readable.  You don't need to 'act town' like some say, but you DO need people to read you and go "Ok, I can see town doing that."   They may add a "...rather (messedup/stupid/annoying/anti-town/worthlesswasteoflife) town but still town" but so long as they can read you as town then you can do what you need to do.

It takes sympathy, a touch of empathy, a large batch of public relations, a ton of honesty, and a cool head.  It can be done even when performing most anti-town behaviors.

No.. it MUST be done.  If you can't, then you're better off learning how to become more 'pro-town' so that you'll be readable.  A readable but weak-hunting player is better for the town than an unreadable but powerful scumhunter.
Logged

Solifuge

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: The Lonely Prince, Day One: A Prince walks into a bar. . .
« Reply #322 on: August 22, 2013, 02:51:25 am »

I'm still compiling observations from the day. It's been a Bitc... *ehem* Bit of an undertaking, especially with so many of you having been so talkative. Though incomplete, here is my brief synopsis of the day... who said what to whom, and why. I'm looking it over for trends and patterns of interaction, but I invite you to look as well.

Lady Solifuge's Day 1 Notebook (Part 1/2):
Spoiler: Lady Cado-Urist: (click to show/hide)
Spoiler: Lady Okami: (click to show/hide)
Spoiler: Lady Toaster: (click to show/hide)
Spoiler: Lady Lenglon (click to show/hide)
Spoiler: Lady Ottofar (click to show/hide)
Spoiler: Lady GriffinPup (click to show/hide)
Spoiler: Lady Griffionday (click to show/hide)

My suspicions remain firmly on Lady Griffionday. But why, you ask? After all, she cast a vote against Not-Quite-There, totally convinced in her guilt beyond any doubt, because NQT neglected to answer a question. Naturally, when NQT used the verb "Emerges" in a sentence, it only strengthened m'lady Griffionday's suspicions. But that was not all, no... when NQT failed to notice how Lady Griffionday was intentionally leaving suspicious tells for NQT, as a test of her guilt, it was clear that NQT must have been the villain. Only a villain wouldn't have noticed all those entirely intentional tells, no?

My ladies, if you are unfamiliar with sarcasm in your homelands, understand that I mean the opposite of what I say here. The intent is to point out how ridiculous Griffionday's "Unshakable Case" against NQT has been this whole time. When you add to this how she began focusing all her energies on protecting herself, apologizing for her mistakes, and shifting blame on to others... or how whenever confronted, instead of presenting facts and observations to defend herself, she instead asks questions to cast doubt on the theories of others? Or how, when confronted about her case on NQT, is somehow simultaneously convinced that her case was completely right, while also being unable to explain it at all?

Please, let us just be rid of her.
Logged

Solifuge

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile

Other interesting things to note:

Ladies Lenglon and Griffionday both cast their vote against someone else for not answering a question.

Lady Lenglon defended Griffionday publicly; she claimed that Griffionday's case against Not-Quite-There was entirely valid as pressure, though it was not good enough to "lynch" NQT. However, that I found it suspicious was apparently reason enough for her to cast a vote against me. So Lady Lenglon must find Griffionday's case simultaneously valid enough to go after me for doubting it, while also not valid enough that "lynching" NQT based on it was a good idea. A very strange contradiction indeed.

Lady Okami's only vote has been against NQT, because Griffionday's Case was "Compelling". At this point, Griffionday's case against NQT was that she hadn't answered a question, and used the verb "Emerges" in a sentence. This is either the height of laziness, or incredibly suspicious.
Logged

Lenglon

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

Lenglon:
Are there any take-away points in that block of RP?  The lack of paragraphs makes it unreadable.
Summary @ bottom of relevant post, as always.

"Well, Lady Tiruin, you um, were asking how emotion ties in to identifying people of foul intent? Well, it depends on how much someone invests in what they're doing. Emotion is another way to express ourselves, but if people aren't using it, then it doesn't do anything. If someone doesn't feel strongly about what they're doing, then just like any other kind of communication, you aren't going to find anything out if nobody uses it. However, it can be useful even then, because when you tie yourself emotionally into what you're doing, then you reveal a potental weakness to someone who wants to act in an underhanded way. As a result, it can be rather tempting for someone who doesn't normally engage in emotional conversation to join into one with me, in an attempt to use this potental weakness to control me. I try to look for exactly that kind of behavior, and when I feel someone acting like that, I look at what they're trying to make me do. If it's something self-serving, then I try to call them out on it, and on their unusual change in behavior in the first place from acting that way. I also feel that, unlike most other forms of communication, I'm nowhere near as far behind the rest of us in understanding these kinds of signals. It's not a normal communication style, and so although I'm not all that experienced at it, neither are the rest of us. The same can't be said for the more normal styles, which I know I'm far behind in understanding, although I'm trying to catch up as fast as I can."
"Lady Solifuge, your most recent antics are most frustrating to me. You are greatly overstating what I have said in defense of Lady GriffDay, and are still refusing to answer my most basic of queries. How am I supposed to trust your intentions when you exhibit that kind of behavior? You concern me because you never answered even the most basic of queries I asked you, and simply acknowledged that I asked them and sidestepped the issues. Just now in fact you pointed out what I was saying and asking of you, and yet still haven't answered. I don't understand what is so hard about my questions, but clearly something about them is giving you trouble answering them. What is that? What do you have to hide? You are also speaking out in large volumes against Lady GriffDay against how she is entirely too focused on Lady NQT, while doing the exact same thing yourself regarding Lady GriffDay! I can't understand how you can see the same behavior you find unacceptable in someone else acceptable in your own person. I find it more likely that you don't honestly believe what you're saying, and are simply focusing on a target of opportunity, someone who others also have spoken against and who attacking will help you blend into the crowd. It feels to me that you aren't trying to find out who is acting upon foul intent, but are simply trying remain here for the good of yourself rather than the good of our beloved Prince. That is something that I simply cannot allow."

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?
Tiruin:it depends on how much the person you're attempting to determine the alignment of invests themselves emotionally into the game. It also gives you an extra handle to bait someone into trying to manipulate you with assuming you tie yourself emotionally into the game. If someone who never gets emotional while playing gets emotional while interacting with me, then I start checking to see if they're trying to manipulate me towards a goal, and try to identify what that goal is. It's an extra communication channel, if other people never use it for anything, then it is useless. But if they do, then you can use it just like any other, and since other people don't use it much I have less of an experience disadvantage there.
Other interesting things to note:

Ladies Lenglon and Griffionday both cast their vote against someone else for not answering a question.

Lady Lenglon defended Griffionday publicly; she claimed that Griffionday's case against Not-Quite-There was entirely valid as pressure, though it was not good enough to "lynch" NQT. However, that I found it suspicious was apparently reason enough for her to cast a vote against me. So Lady Lenglon must find Griffionday's case simultaneously valid enough to go after me for doubting it, while also not valid enough that "lynching" NQT based on it was a good idea. A very strange contradiction indeed.
Soli: You are misrepresenting me in your summary. I am voting you over two issues, evasion and hypocrisy. You evaded my questions earlier, and your most recent post evaded them again. You are also accusing someone of tunneling while tunneling yourself.

Extend
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.))

Solifuge

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile

Ignoring your questions? Have you forgotten what you asked? Do you even remember what you are upset about?

Solifuge: you dropped your RP almost completely when you answered that. why?
Solifuge: you had no follow-up to the questions you asked me, why? what did you learn from them?

((You were upset that I "dropped RP" which I never did. For starters, though I don't have a problem with what you're doing, I'm not portraying a character the same way you are. I'm just playing the game as normal, but using terms that make sense given the whole princess scenario. Whenever I have to address the game itself in a meta-sense, I'm doing the good old fashioned double-parenthesis OOC Annotation. This aside, my "RP" has never changed, and I don't see where you see that. Also, I don't understand your obsession with reading into this kind of flavor as though it was the best place to look for information. That strikes me as a very poor scumhunting strategy at best))

You were upset that I didn't ask you more questions than I did. I'm sorry if I somehow offended you, but I had no need or interest in asking you anything else. I'd wanted to hear something from you to get to know you better, you obliged, and we were done. What more did you want me to ask you? And why? Why are you so worried about what I think of you? Shouldn't you be more concerned with finding someone suspicious? Do you even have any suspicions?

Also, feel free to explain how you feel that Lady Griffionday's case on Lady Not-Quite-There is valid, but not lynchworthy... but how you think I am somehow suspicious for pointing out how weak it was, and for using it in my case against Griff. Why are you spending your time and energy protecting Griffionday, instead of looking for things that you find suspicious? Just what is it about her case that you find so valid?
Logged

Lenglon

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

"Uhhhh... Solifuge? You just did it again. I don't think you're suspicious for pointing out the weakness of the argument, I think you're suspicious for trying to use her weak argument as cause to kick her out, and as an excuse to close your eyes to those around you. Unlike GriffDay you haven't been trying to investigate your target, but have been instead trying to kick her out. GriffDay isn't overstepping her bounds by questioning someone over minor things. We haven't been here all that long, and such actions are how discussions are made. You are by focusing entirely on the result and ignoring the road that leads to it. Our goal here isn't simply to kick someone out, our goal is to learn about each other and to find those acting deceptively and remove them. Your actions are those of someonee entirely focused on removing someone, not on learning, and this early on we can't afford such a locked-in attitude. Why do you keep doing this? This rephrasing of what I'm saying into something I don't mean, and then attacking me for that. I think GriffDay's case is weak, but I also think that her actions... her attempts to build a case... are sincere and are at least prompting discussion and insight. It is reasonable to question someone about something that isn't worth expulsion over. It is reasonable to take an assertive stance and vote for someone who you are questioning, to make them pay attention to your queries and react more strongly. It is unreasonable to point out some minor flaw in someone's actions, vote to remove them over it, and just leave your vote sitting there with no discussion, no investigation, no  efforts to learn. That is what you are doing, that is why I think you have no buisness being here. You asked me if I have suspicions? I suspect you. If you want to do something about my suspicions, I suggest you start by explaining, as I asked you earlier, why you asked those questions in the first place, what you learned from them. you know, the theory behind why they matter. unless your questions had no real meaning? you weren't using them to learn, but instead to fill space? I've seen little thus far to convince me you're trying to investigate anyone, care to prove me otherwise?"

Ignoring your questions? Have you forgotten what you asked? Do you even remember what you are upset about?

Solifuge: you dropped your RP almost completely when you answered that. why?
Solifuge: you had no follow-up to the questions you asked me, why? what did you learn from them?

((You were upset that I "dropped RP" which I never did. For starters, though I don't have a problem with what you're doing, I'm not portraying a character the same way you are. I'm just playing the game as normal, but using terms that make sense given the whole princess scenario. Whenever I have to address the game itself in a meta-sense, I'm doing the good old fashioned double-parenthesis OOC Annotation. This aside, my "RP" has never changed, and I don't see where you see that. Also, I don't understand your obsession with reading into this kind of flavor as though it was the best place to look for information. That strikes me as a very poor scumhunting strategy at best))

You were upset that I didn't ask you more questions than I did. I'm sorry if I somehow offended you, but I had no need or interest in asking you anything else. I'd wanted to hear something from you to get to know you better, you obliged, and we were done. What more did you want me to ask you? And why? Why are you so worried about what I think of you? Shouldn't you be more concerned with finding someone suspicious? Do you even have any suspicions?

Also, feel free to explain how you feel that Lady Griffionday's case on Lady Not-Quite-There is valid, but not lynchworthy... but how you think I am somehow suspicious for pointing out how weak it was, and for using it in my case against Griff. Why are you spending your time and energy protecting Griffionday, instead of looking for things that you find suspicious? Just what is it about her case that you find so valid?
Solifuge:you are misrepresenting my stance. I think it is ok for GriffDay to use a weak case as cause to investigate and ask questions, because doing so prompts discussion and allows us to gather a lot of information about the people involved. I think your actions, which have been phrased to stifle discussion, are not acceptable. You are just going for an easy lynch, and your hypocritical tunneling accusation of GriffDay is further evidence of this. You also have yet to explain the theory behind your RVS questions to me. How do you expect to learn something from them? Why do they matter more than asking me if I like the color blue or other such nonsense? what did you learn from them? I asked you this before and you've evaded it repeatedly, as a result I think you were just marking time, scumbag. who am I suspicious of? I'm suspicious of you, the person I'm voting for and talking to.
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.))

webadict

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

ugh im not in the mood for extend webadict none of your votes explanatoons really make sense to me
Literally the most retarded vote made in this game past RVS. This is why I have no faith in the Town. Because they are, without a doubt, all idiots. I don't know why anyone WOULDN'T think that. But, what can I do? I have to trust these morons regardless.

Town, please read:
Look back at Jim's case. You'll notice he doesn't care about finding scum one bit. He's only interested in lynching me, and that's where his reasonings come from. They'll be generic reasons, none of which is a meta-tell for me, and, in fact, I am known for doing things such as this regardless of alignment. You'll also notice his distinct lack of trying, but I have no faith in any of your abilities to see that.

Jim:  Web has ceased to vote Griffionday.  What does that do to your case on him?

Nothing, really. Instead of trying to dig stuff up on his suspects (myself and Leafsnail), he decided to vote somebody he didn't suspect (Griffionday) for stupid reasons. Up until that point he was sitting on his ass doing pretty much nothing.
Lies.

I didn't suspect you nor Leafsnail until after I had voted Griffionday. The whole reason I suspected you two was because I had become more active in the game.

You also have not explained how the reasons are both flimsy and stupid, so you're simply evading questions now.

Also, please try harder.

Oh, but now that somebody voted him, and even better, he's tied for the lynch, oh, now he has motivation to play.
No, I inserted myself into the game BY voting Griffionday. Having a case gave me motivation to play. Having someone to ask questions gave me motivation to play. Having someone that asked questions gave me motivation to play. So... more lies. Woo. I don't know whether you're just not trying or what, but it's super disheartening that you, a player that thinks she's experienced at the game, are doing less work then just about every other player. Maybe you need a Beginner Mafia?

What do you call somebody who's passive, makes bad cases, and only kicks it into gear when he's in trouble? Scum.
Wait, how am I passive? You're the one being passive. Am I seriously watching this? You're evading questions, not justifying your case, and now you're, at best, exaggerating my negatives. I'm the one that CHOSE to be MORE active. You haven't done anything! I am seriously in disbelief at this. You're not even trying a single bit.

Extend because the day ends tomorrow and I won't be around for the deadline and there are like a million people who could be voting but aren't because they're lazy fuckers. I'd rather not see the day extended if the tie gets broken.

I'll respond to wubadub tomorrow if the day doesn't end.
Yeah, you wouldn't want to see the Day Extended, because then you'd have to respond to me. So, everything I've said about you is proven in a single post. You just. Don't. Care.

My suspicions remain firmly on Lady Griffionday. But why, you ask? After all, she cast a vote against Not-Quite-There, totally convinced in her guilt beyond any doubt, because NQT neglected to answer a question. Naturally, when NQT used the verb "Emerges" in a sentence, it only strengthened m'lady Griffionday's suspicions. But that was not all, no... when NQT failed to notice how Lady Griffionday was intentionally leaving suspicious tells for NQT, as a test of her guilt, it was clear that NQT must have been the villain. Only a villain wouldn't have noticed all those entirely intentional tells, no?
Please don't vote Griffionday. That's just a wasted vote at this moment. No one plans to switch to her at all. I'd appreciate if you took a stance on me.
Logged

webadict

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

Proof post.
I didn't suspect you nor Leafsnail until after I had voted Griffionday.
On that side, though, what would you say if I didn't think anyone was significantly scummy?
Griffionday
This is when I became active. Notice my posting intervals and content before and afterwards. I became more involved, and that's when I got a better grasp on the game. I even explain, later, that
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!
So, I have no idea where she's getting this information that I had two suspects before I voted oh wait, I totally do. Lazy bum didn't even bother reading my answer to this question, clearly:
Tiruin, Solifuge, webadict, the day ends tomorrow. How's your lists of suspects shaping up, and who's on it?
If she had, wouldn't she have noticed I said no one?

You also have not explained how the reasons are both flimsy and stupid, so you're simply evading questions now.
No explanation on flimsiness.
You can bet she won't bother explaining stupid.
Voting and lynching people you don't suspect for making bad cases is idiotic and scummy, and no amount of flimsy justifications and rationalizations will ever support that.
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.
Also, can't fight circular logic. Which is probably why she can't explain it.

No, I inserted myself into the game BY voting Griffionday. Having a case gave me motivation to play. Having someone to ask questions gave me motivation to play. Having someone that asked questions gave me motivation to play. So... more lies. Woo. I don't know whether you're just not trying or what, but it's super disheartening that you, a player that thinks she's experienced at the game, are doing less work then just about every other player. Maybe you need a Beginner Mafia?
Notice my posting habits before and after this post. Before it, I was basically not feeling the game. I didn't have much motivation to play. I was mostly thinking about what Toaster had said a few posts above it. I did not feel like this was appropriate behavior. So, I took steps to become involved.

Wait, how am I passive? You're the one being passive. Am I seriously watching this? You're evading questions, not justifying your case, and now you're, at best, exaggerating my negatives. I'm the one that CHOSE to be MORE active. You haven't done anything! I am seriously in disbelief at this. You're not even trying a single bit.
Again, before this post, I would have no defense against being passive. However, I am far more active than Jim Groovester, who sat on her case on RangerCado since RVS. It can be called a RV because, as Jim puts it:
I also find it strange that your vote goes to me without any questions or further evidence. What else have I done that you find scummy?

Gotta start somewhere.

Yeah, you wouldn't want to see the Day Extended, because then you'd have to respond to me. So, everything I've said about you is proven in a single post. You just. Don't. Care.
I won't be around for the deadline
I'd rather not see the day extended if the tie gets broken.
I'll respond to wubadub tomorrow if the day doesn't end.
She should respond to me regardless of the Day ending or not. If she cared about her case, it'd be something she'd do. But, no points awarded if she pretends like her case wasn't scummy at all or that she tried. Because she didn't.
Logged

webadict

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

To extend, or not to extend?

That's not the question because I refuse to extend on principle now. If I die, I die, but whatever you morons think you're doing, stop doing it and look at the cases and reasons for unvoting people. I realize you're all headless chickens, flailing around, but maybe y'all should try to do something bigger.

Anyhow, I probably won't be paying attention when the Day ends, but if you decide you want to weigh in on what you think, that'd be both appreciated and appropriate. If not, well, thanks for not participating in the game. The Day is ending soon.

Also, Okami no Rei did not ask for a replacement, so not prodding him is not okay. Also, if he IS asking for a replacement, please unvote him and add another replacement. He hasn't posted in a lot of hours.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] 23 24 ... 70