Intriguing. A melancholic note,
Imp. That is a full swing of thought from your previous words. You take a thorough route and deign to support your vote?
I can understand some kind of vexation against DS, and Darvi for their lesser-than-expected performance (one on busy-ness, two on...unexplained leave), but tagging me as
Tiruin walked in here without an intention of winning. She wasn't careful enough in deciding who to vote for. She wasn't Tiruin enough.
This?
This underhanded slap to my dignity more than my role as a player?
MY INTENT IS TO WIN, BUT TO ALSO TEACH. I DO NOT JOIN GAMES JUST TO THROWAWAY SUCH NOTIONS AND WASTE A VALUABLE SLOT AS A PLAYER.And to think otherwise of me is no less an insult than an attack to my honor.
If she's Town, she deserves to lose. She is an IC. She knows better. If not, this might teach her. People come to BMs to learn. Apparently the ICs too. Maybe Tiruin tries harder to be Town when she's Scum. Alright Tiruin; if that's true, you can die when you are Town because of that. Deathsword too, who tarnished his role as IC in more than one way, Deathsword too, who if he is Town played so poorly he deserves to lose for it.
Ahh, so if I flip town, I
deserved my fate? You appeal to some kind of notion that I can't exactly nail down, but seemingly take a overtly-righteous stance that somehow, player ethics or values come in question and denounce others about it. The orange part? Forgive my eloquence, but I call BS on it. It seems you've a diction on what defines town more than how you see people play as town, yes?
Because the bolded portion afterwards seems more related than not. Same goes for relating Deathsword, who, I have to say,
isn't playing anymore. Any below-the-belt quips at him can be addressed in personal matters, or post-game. The mere note that you're announcing it in public and looking at the IC role--as compared to what the player announces when playing said role--seems that you've an annoyance with this.
The following statements you give appeal more than to emotions with lacking note. I could understand the deal with frustration, but there are better ways to word it. If I've to take a tup of your style there: You're bringing it into extremes. Either/Or, me or Tiruin? Help town win by voting the other?
I see reluctance and contradiction in the same post.
It was a hard choice for me, to decide between you and Tiruin. But I have. I've decided to believe that you are Town.
Why is Squill town?
I don't see me changing my vote. I'm done too.
Why close all lines of communication? Other than give the gesture of being rude, this isn't town-play and rather gives the notion of 'IT'S EITHER YOU OR ME, PUNK.' with the appended insult being optional.
Town is hard. I'm starting to think a lot of players sign up for these games, the experienced players, and not just those who offer to be ICs in BMs, but they sign up for these games wanting to be Scum, and don't care anymore when they find out they are Town. Very much a self fulfilling prophecy, 'Town's going to lose so why try hard'.
I'd keep my silence and respect your opinion here, but I choose to speak.
To speak on behalf on those who favor one side or another. Contrived bias forms from a playstyle which does so, and to keep on wanting scum-due to the want of manipulation, perhaps-or to want town due to how 'innocent' it appears does not hold the crux of Mafia. What matters is how you communicate, regardless of alignment.
Heck yes. Town is frickin' hard. Yet
gloriously satisfying when played well. Scum, in the general notion is frickin' easy. But in how
you play your role is the note that matters. For me, I go lone wolf no matter which alignment I am. Looking to the group as always, yet always wary of my path. The bolded note there appears to me that you've taken a sip from the cup of bias, and dictate a pillar of knowledge without the foundation of wisdom.
Meaning: That's a pretty scathing accusation there. Subtly calling me a cheap player who throwsaway the decent notion of scumhunting, even though it was never said--though worded precisely, in your vote and motive.
'Don't care'. 'but'. 'not just'.
All those definitives used in a way to give a concrete stand on your opinion. While I respect that you have an opinion, I have to take a stand and challenge it in its entirety.
Let me round this code of intrigue with a simple question.
What are you doing,
Imp? Can you define what makes a Townie, in brevity?
Explain to me your 'mindset' when you joined this game, what your intentions were then. No really - what did you intend to do in your play, both D2, early D3, mid D3, and late D3. Explain to me too now your 'mindset' as you play this game, what your intentions are now.
Simple in two words. "Play." "Win."
If you unfortunately expected me, as an IC rather than a player to teach rather than play, then you are wrong.
If you unfortunately expected me, as a player rather than an IC, to play rather than teach, then you are still wrong.
Both go in tandem; both go with the player's character and personality.
What I intended to do is to keep notes. To pursue the scientific Mafia process of checking in and out:
Firstly, to note if all players in-game have at least conscious knowledge how the game is played, so as to keep voluntariness in playing.
Secondly, is to play by fire. To play my game as I would a real game. Lacking fervor? Perhaps. Lacking notes? Perhaps. Though I have to detail that there are few times where you--or anyone--can predict my playstyle. I am amorphous. An amalgam of thoughts. What I intend to do is seen by my posts, and despite my RL duties, I try my best to keep up with what I start. And what I start,
I see to the thrice damned finish. Thirdly, do you take a focus to what I did in exacts during that time, or do you see me explaining myself here--compared to what I posted, and did then--some sort of summary or defense against anything you have? What I said, is what I said. That is why there are no edits in Mafia. Your word is your word, and any interpretation pertaining to it denotes a rational following.
Though I have to note. If I am to be insulted, then bring that trash to my face rather than subtly hint it out.
Scum win almost every game. Your method was rather odd, probably didn't help you. But I do believe you tried.
While the statistics don't lie, its in how the game is played that matters and how the set-up is done. All else are up to the players.
Squill, as far as I'm concerned, everything is in your hands now. I'm Town, and I have been all game. Every choice I've made is a Town choice, no matter if that choice was right or wrong. You've played beside me this entire game, and if you cannot read my actions throughout as Town, then I guess you need to see that you were wrong too. I'm not very sure about you. You haven't worked for a Town win. But you're not the only one. And Tiruin -should- have. And she didn't.
So. I give you my decision. You make the final call, whether you want to give Town a chance to win, or whether you do not.
And you give him a decision--something he
always had, as an ultimatum, hmm?
You're appealing to the one you rank as 'town'. How
sure are you of him being town? How sure are you of me being scum? Playstyle? Fervor? Passion? Number of posts?
The bolded note is a superficial add-on. You have no need to say that
unless you're using it as a bargaining token. You don't change roles and come-traitor to the team you're on. What is that even for? Are you giving up after all this time?
And on the underlined part. What kind of reasoning is that?
You state on terminology, but lack how its played out. It's like an alleged zealot professing that their actions are right 'because they stand for the greater good!'. You may be donned in shining armor, with a polished cape and a stern will, but when it is time to kill your foe, do you stay your blade or end their life, because 'what you did was
good'? This is rhetorical.
You may stand on an alignment, one way or another, yet it is by your action
in itself which keep you to that alignment. I hope you're familiar with that given a history of D&D?
I will cease to speak for the latest bolded portion, as it is a direct attack against the person. I only have to ask...
Why.Why would you resort to such
low means, that all sorts of logic frown upon to do that? Such a flippant act is...disgusting. You judge before the hammer is given, and the verdict is layed. You speak behind my back, yet all your vote entails is a shallow stab at me. And not just me, but everyone before me. You carry a vendetta against them? So be it.
But when you make it into the area of
argumentum ad hominem, then I am lost for words. Have I taught wrong? Am I lacking? Does my playstyle not carry even a note of learning in it--if so far that I've done evil, then let your acts be opposite to mine, and learn from it! Why must you address another and denounce me that way, when I am no farther than where Squill stands in listening to you?
Squill:Is that first question rhetorical? In case it isn't, I think that it is much easier to influence the game if people jump on your bandwagon for no good reason.
It is only rhetorical if it concludes, in that matter.
...
So how are people jumping on a bandwagon an influence to the game? Does it not matter their intent or how/why they do so? Why do you use the 'bandwagon' as a term there? You do know that it has a negative meaning when used in Mafia, yes?