Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[zombie urist]

Day extended to Wednesday, November 13th 9 PM PST

[Squill]

Squill

Really sorry for not being here yesterday, all.

Before I complete my post (yeah holidays + preparing for uni), I'd like to ask a few things.

Squill: It is LYLO. You're seriously voting for Imp under grounds of this accusation? The same would follow for Rolepgeek, but by far--what Imp said is perfectly her own opinion, and will not daunt others from playing. I mean, its pretty obvious that people would be irritated or depressed at the level of activity given how much effort they've put into it.

Humor me. Did you think that case would be believable enough to stand? You seem to be concluding more than investigating, given how you aren't leaving anything for Imp. Is that a conclusion back there?

I think you're right. Imp was my best vote, but it was terribly thought out. For now, unvote.

And your best vote is terribly thought out. Append a 'for now' and you have an unvote.

The reasons on my vote on Puffyfish were mostly subjective to his former's actions, but here you-to not parrot Imp- retreat in the face of direct opposition.

The vagueness there. What is it for? You think I'm right means that you sort of agree with me, aye? So then what?

Shotgun questions.

@Tiruin:
I think that when I made that vote against Imp I was in a rather bad mood, and did not want to deal with people. I was posting because I felt like I had to, but I really didn't feel like spending too much time on it. So yes, I agree with you. As for the "So then what?", I'm not sure.

[Imp]

Posting to check in.  I had massive distracting time consuming stuff over the weekend (weekends usually have been extra time for Mafia for me, not less) and today work is slamed.  My time budget for Mafia is incredibly pinched right now, so I'll be answering and answering tonight.  Glad to see the extension already happened.

[Gentlefish]

((PFP)) No rush, Imp. We're talking more already than the game has been the last week or two, and I'm willing to extend at least once more if need be.

[zombie urist]

Day ends Wednesday November 13th 9PM PST.

Imp - Pufferfish
squill -
bsnott -
Pufferfish -
Tiruin -

Not voting - bsnott, Imp, Tiruin, squill

0 to extend, 2 needed
0 to shorten, 3 needed

[Imp]

Squill:

People not wanting to go against you is all well and good if you are town, but the entire point of the game is that we really don't know who's side anyone is on except for ourselves. I think that the only way people should be excluded from questioning is if they present very good proof of them not being scum. Thus, I think that, whether intentionally or unintentionally, presenting yourself as a target that is too high to hit can be at best ineffective at achieving anything, but more probably detrimental to town.

What would you consider as "very good proof of [someone] not being scum", what could someone do or present to you that would convince you?  To me there are extremely few things which count as proof, and I'm wondering if we agree on them.

I don't understand what you mean about "presenting yourself as a target that is too high to hit", would you explain what you mean, and how it would work?

bsnott:
Asking you -again-.  Progress report on your reading of the thread, please.  Also, how much of what you've read makes sense?

Puff:

Why does cautious posting scare you? Squill has already mentioned that your posts are aggressive and may turn people away from responding to you. So not responding due to someone's perceived overbearing aggressiveness is scummy?

You said you read all the thread?  If you want to double check my answers about this, I suggest you double check Squill's posts, from the start of the game onwards.

Squill has been cautious all game, with everyone.  He has not taken strong stances for most of the game, not spoken his mind with any depth, not made many cases, not been very active in Scumhunting.  He has occasionally made comments about observations, but he has rarely taken any actions I can understand as attempts to get more information.  That's 'bad' because Scum can win by playing passively (they don't have to find any hidden secrets, they just need to not get dead), but Town usually cannot win by passive play (Scum cannot be counted on to find themselves).  Additionally, by being so self contained, so cautious, it's made it extremely difficult for me to get a real feel for Squill's intentions and goals - that's a big concern to me because I've been trying for essentially this entire game to.

That 'scares me' because we have a job to do - if we're Town.  And if we fail to do it, Town is likely to lose.  Scum have no reason to Scumhunt except to hide, and what they do isn't actually Scumhunting, they're doing everything BUT effectively Scumhunting - they can put any amount of attention, focus, and work into anything but finding the real Scum and that's going to work just fine for them - long as they don't get lynched for whatever they do.

Playing cautious is Scummy, because it's not a very effective way to find Scum.  Squill has also not answered most of my questions very directly/most of his answers do not actually answer my questions.  Scum can have a hard time interacting with others, they have to constantly keep in mind that they have to hide their 'real goals', which are the complete opposite of what they are trying to show.  Granted, deep introverts can also have issues with that - but deep introverts can also be given a Scum role.  So the search can be a bit difficult, but it's very much worth doing, especially in lylo when there can be no further mistakes.

BSnott

@Pufferfish You may have previously stated this, but what is your list?

I know I posted it. But I can't find to to quote it, so:

Imp
Tiruin/Squill
You

Here's that previously posted list:

My list goes:
Imp - Now, because I can see the case built by Deathsword.
BSnott - Mr. Zero was reeaallll quiet during all of that.
Squill - You kept a steady, if slow post pace.
Tiruin - You picked up DS's place. DS had a hell of a solid case.

As soon as I realize and make known that I believe that Death Sword had a case, she starts splicing out my words and her posts become exponentially larger.

Almost as if she were afraid or even angry that I might be close to the truth of her role.

You provide me much to react to, and much to question you about - and I do - and your response appears to state that you are considering ONLY the size of my response to you, not any of the content (did you also consider the size of your posts to me, when you were deciding what to mention or not for your "Spoiler: Recent events!"?).

Re:  Your "Spoiler: What I've gleaned from this."

You restate your take on Deathsword's case against me, without any consideration of my response to your first statement of your case.  Your spoiler is literally a partial summary of your first post's case - you do not say one word about anything said in my response, not to examine weaker points in your case in case anything Deathsword had said was or may have been inaccurate - not to attempt to strengthen your case, to show any connections that you see to further statements from me that you believe support Deathsword's accusations.

So, yes, from this information, I believe Imp to be guilty.

Instead you attempt to wear Deathsword's accusations as 'whole cloth', perfect and complete exactly as is - Puff, you're dressing in the Emperor's (old) New Clothes and it shows.

Is this post of yours in answer to my question,

Care to explain that [Deathsword's] case in your own words?

If so, you have chosen to do so by considering -only- your interpretation of the posts of D2, and without any consideration of any possible misunderstandings (be they yours, Deathsword's, or mine); without considering anything I said in answer to your initial post in support of the Deathsword's case.

See, Town don't need to lynch 'person'.  They need to lynch 'Scum' - and especially when in Lylo, a mistake is game over, Scum win.  Explain, 'Town-Puff', why you feel there is no need to examine anything other than what you have already examined, why you choose to disregard any other information that may support or disprove any part or even the entirety of 'your' case?  Considering that a mistake made in lynching now will end the game with a Scum win, what justification do you see for failing to consider your assumptions and beliefs?

Because if someone is lying - through direct falsehood, through misrepresentation of facts or through holding unreasonable opinions that they refuse to reexamine - such greatly increases the likelihood that person showing that behavior is Scum.  It would be wise for you to explore interaction with me, to test and verify 'your' case.  By appearing to ignore information that questions 'your' case, you weaken it greatly - and appear increasingly Scummy.

Except you don't completely ignore that information.  You do 'use' one part of it.  Total volume of words.  You attempt to base at least a portion of your 'case' - and this one is at least in part "yours in truth" because you're actually adding information to it instead of just taking wholesale what another has said and supporting that - you base your additional information on the idea that a greater volume of words is Scummy, and conciseness is not.  You're not even talking about content - you're actually talking about word count.

Explain your reasoning.  Please.


Tiruin:  An actual answer is coming to you, but I am so exhausted (and my day starts so soon) that it's not coming this post.  Probably tonight.  Maybe today, if time allows while I'm at work.  You explain at least some of your thinking that I was asking to see in your recent answer, but I am not able at this time to properly follow and analyze it, so it's got to wait.

[Tiruin]

Tiruin:  An actual answer is coming to you, but I am so exhausted (and my day starts so soon) that it's not coming this post.  Probably tonight.  Maybe today, if time allows while I'm at work.  You explain at least some of your thinking that I was asking to see in your recent answer, but I am not able at this time to properly follow and analyze it, so it's got to wait.

If it aids you, you don't have to lay it out in formal narrative. I can't see your ties with Puffin--this being one of my suspicions from before on a wholly unannounced note and kept to myself--and that if such were a bus-maneuver, given how rationalizing is part of the fore of your playstyle (as well as me detecting a significant...note on how you to this), that is quite a darn well played bus.

I don't see it as that, however. One or the other is town or not, and right now the poison-fish is scum'd.

Tiruin:

You're right. I do have to vote at some point. Let's get the pressure going. I'll rebuild Deathsword's case and make my vote.

After I get my cookie dough.

Also this has been a weird game as it comes to BMs, as far as I can understand. Looots of absence. So you're not a bad IC.

So why did you FoS her anyway? Why not vote her?

I think that when I made that vote against Imp I was in a rather bad mood, and did not want to deal with people. I was posting because I felt like I had to, but I really didn't feel like spending too much time on it. So yes, I agree with you. As for the "So then what?", I'm not sure.

Posting...because you felt like you had to? What does that entail and mean?

[Squill]

I think that when I made that vote against Imp I was in a rather bad mood, and did not want to deal with people. I was posting because I felt like I had to, but I really didn't feel like spending too much time on it. So yes, I agree with you. As for the "So then what?", I'm not sure.

Posting...because you felt like you had to? What does that entail and mean?

@TiruinIt was in the mindset that "I don't want to play right now, but people will get annoyed if I don't post."
I was posting because I like to do at least one post per day, and I felt that anything is better than nothing.

Squill:

People not wanting to go against you is all well and good if you are town, but the entire point of the game is that we really don't know who's side anyone is on except for ourselves. I think that the only way people should be excluded from questioning is if they present very good proof of them not being scum. Thus, I think that, whether intentionally or unintentionally, presenting yourself as a target that is too high to hit can be at best ineffective at achieving anything, but more probably detrimental to town.

What would you consider as "very good proof of [someone] not being scum", what could someone do or present to you that would convince you?  To me there are extremely few things which count as proof, and I'm wondering if we agree on them.
I don't understand what you mean about "presenting yourself as a target that is too high to hit", would you explain what you mean, and how it would work?

@Imp: The only example that comes to mind is bsnott's recent situation. If he was scum, then he just threw away the game.
HOWEVER, something just occurred to me: bsnott can still be scum, but only if you are scum as well.

As for a target too high to hit, I mean you are aggressive and thorough in basically every post you make; people do not want to accuse you, because nobody wants to deal with the ensuing scrutiny. As probably the most frequent poster, with the longest posts, nobody wants to spend their time in the game embroiled in conflict with you. Which, if you're a scum, is a very good thing. Do you understand what I am saying?

[Tiruin]

Oho.

Intersteting. Very intersteting indeed.

Squill:

People not wanting to go against you is all well and good if you are town, but the entire point of the game is that we really don't know who's side anyone is on except for ourselves. I think that the only way people should be excluded from questioning is if they present very good proof of them not being scum. Thus, I think that, whether intentionally or unintentionally, presenting yourself as a target that is too high to hit can be at best ineffective at achieving anything, but more probably detrimental to town.

What would you consider as "very good proof of [someone] not being scum", what could someone do or present to you that would convince you?  To me there are extremely few things which count as proof, and I'm wondering if we agree on them.
I don't understand what you mean about "presenting yourself as a target that is too high to hit", would you explain what you mean, and how it would work?

@Imp: The only example that comes to mind is bsnott's recent situation. If he was scum, then he just threw away the game.
HOWEVER, something just occurred to me: bsnott can still be scum, but only if you are scum as well.

As for a target too high to hit, I mean you are aggressive and thorough in basically every post you make; people do not want to accuse you, because nobody wants to deal with the ensuing scrutiny. As probably the most frequent poster, with the longest posts, nobody wants to spend their time in the game embroiled in conflict with you. Which, if you're a scum, is a very good thing. Do you understand what I am saying?

I have the visual impairment of a summer fruit bat. So I need insight. Where did the first bolded sentence get its basis from? How does the secondary sentence relate to that--you didn't expound on it and I can't see why or how the proceeding paragraph makes sense.

Because you poke at Imp's generality and not into what exactly in her posts she gives.

The third bolded sentence is an outright piece of undermining, as I'm accusing Imp, however we're debating it. How can you not see people accusing Imp? The whole thing is contrary to recent events as you also have just accused her earlier of things which aren't even game-anchored plus a vote. Emotional appeal? I do remember that from the start of today, sir.

I think that when I made that vote against Imp I was in a rather bad mood, and did not want to deal with people. I was posting because I felt like I had to, but I really didn't feel like spending too much time on it. So yes, I agree with you. As for the "So then what?", I'm not sure.

Posting...because you felt like you had to? What does that entail and mean?

@TiruinIt was in the mindset that "I don't want to play right now, but people will get annoyed if I don't post."
I was posting because I like to do at least one post per day, and I felt that anything is better than nothing.

Because this is what you said, aye? You said this with a vote and backtracked and withdrew when an accusation--a simple one prodding on what you did--was issued.

I will have to punch you on the underlined sentence. I've done and was nominated-by myself, o'course-for the most frequent poster on the recent Mafia games, and people have gone into sticky sticks with me. Stating a 'nobody' seems too broad and too...unspecific, to be some kind of innocent persuasion.

Are you discarding Imp from your list of suspects? Or are you passive-aggressively poking at her? I want to see detail behind your words, cause this sonar I've got only has as much range as what I hear back from you.

I don't understand what you're saying, as you don't back it up. For me, you are going by what your response to my query is-posting for the sake of posting-as this thing you've got here has no backing but hot air.

ChemTip: Helium expands when heated and follows the gas laws. You wanna rise? Build your foundation on hard tacks as people will most probably see the gap in logic from the ground until you. Granted, you aren't flammable at least.

[Squill]

I have the visual impairment of a summer fruit bat. So I need insight. Where did the first bolded sentence get its basis from? How does the secondary sentence relate to that--you didn't expound on it and I can't see why or how the proceeding paragraph makes sense.

Imp's reasoning for bsnott being indubitably town made sense at first. If Imp was lynched, scum wins. By bsnott extending the game, he effectively prevented scum from winning then and there. But there is a problem with this:
If Imp is scum, then it is still entirely possible for bsnott to be scum, as that means that bsnott was not preventing scum victory, but assisting it.

[Tiruin]

...Yeeeaahh that still doesn't make sense how you worded

@Imp: The only example that comes to mind is bsnott's recent situation. If he was scum, then he just threw away the game.
HOWEVER, something just occurred to me: bsnott can still be scum, but only if you are scum as well.

Imp's reasoning for bsnott being indubitably town made sense at first. If Imp was lynched, scum wins. By bsnott extending the game, he effectively prevented scum from winning then and there. But there is a problem with this:
If Imp is scum, then it is still entirely possible for bsnott to be scum, as that means that bsnott was not preventing scum victory, but assisting it.

How did he effectively prevent a scum win? As in, effectively?
And that also means he was trying to save a buddy because of the carpy reasons people put on Imp at the time, huh? PS: Check his votes before that.

[Squill]

...Yeeeaahh that still doesn't make sense how you worded

@Imp: The only example that comes to mind is bsnott's recent situation. If he was scum, then he just threw away the game.
HOWEVER, something just occurred to me: bsnott can still be scum, but only if you are scum as well.

Imp's reasoning for bsnott being indubitably town made sense at first. If Imp was lynched, scum wins. By bsnott extending the game, he effectively prevented scum from winning then and there. But there is a problem with this:
If Imp is scum, then it is still entirely possible for bsnott to be scum, as that means that bsnott was not preventing scum victory, but assisting it.

How did he effectively prevent a scum win? As in, effectively?
And that also means he was trying to save a buddy because of the carpy reasons people put on Imp at the time, huh? PS: Check his votes before that.

I think you're just confusing me now. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the situation as I understand it: According to Imp's argument of bsnott's innocence, by extending bsnott prevents Imp from being lynched by extending. If he was scum, he could have not extended, letting Imp get lynched and winning for scum.
The problem comes in when you consider this: If both Imp and bsnott are scum, then this proof falls apart, and becomes a convenient way to declare one scum as town.
I'm really not sure how much clearer I can make this.

[zombie urist]

Day ends Wednesday November 13th 9PM PST. ~26 hours from this post

Imp - Pufferfish
squill -
bsnott -
Pufferfish -
Tiruin -

Not voting - bsnott, Imp, Tiruin, squill

0 to extend, 2 needed
0 to shorten, 3 needed

bsnott has been prodded.

[bsnott]

I'm on my smartphone, so I'm gonna make this quick. I need to vote, as I can't tomorrow. I knows exactly what this is going to look like. Pufferfish. I know, he's voting on Imp. If both me and Imp are scum, this will look like I'm hopping on a guy for hitting out the other mafia. This is my only chance to vote, and he is literally my only option. I'm sorry if this is taken against me and I ruin the game for all of us. I hope you all understand  the reason for my short explanation.

[Gentlefish]

Imp:

Is this post of yours in answer to my question,

Care to explain that [Deathsword's] case in your own words?

If so, you have chosen to do so by considering -only- your interpretation of the posts of D2, and without any consideration of any possible misunderstandings (be they yours, Deathsword's, or mine); without considering anything I said in answer to your initial post in support of the Deathsword's case.

See, Town don't need to lynch 'person'.  They need to lynch 'Scum' - and especially when in Lylo, a mistake is game over, Scum win.  Explain, 'Town-Puff', why you feel there is no need to examine anything other than what you have already examined, why you choose to disregard any other information that may support or disprove any part or even the entirety of 'your' case?  Considering that a mistake made in lynching now will end the game with a Scum win, what justification do you see for failing to consider your assumptions and beliefs?

Because if someone is lying - through direct falsehood, through misrepresentation of facts or through holding unreasonable opinions that they refuse to reexamine - such greatly increases the likelihood that person showing that behavior is Scum.  It would be wise for you to explore interaction with me, to test and verify 'your' case.  By appearing to ignore information that questions 'your' case, you weaken it greatly - and appear increasingly Scummy.

Except you don't completely ignore that information.  You do 'use' one part of it.  Total volume of words.  You attempt to base at least a portion of your 'case' - and this one is at least in part "yours in truth" because you're actually adding information to it instead of just taking wholesale what another has said and supporting that - you base your additional information on the idea that a greater volume of words is Scummy, and conciseness is not.  You're not even talking about content - you're actually talking about word count.

Explain your reasoning.  Please.

Yes. I did explain Deathsword's case in my own words.

Obviously there is going to be misunderstandings. Deathsword is not here for me to ask him about it.

To answer:

why you choose to disregard any other information that may support or disprove any part or even the entirety of 'your' case?  Considering that a mistake made in lynching now will end the game with a Scum win, what justification do you see for failing to consider your assumptions and beliefs?

Consider it me trying to get a better read on you. I -have- been noticing a greater theme underlying your posts. Especially now more than ever, because it is lylo and I was acting belligerent. On its own, Deathsword's case is a great foundation but doesn't lead anywhere. You're trying to turn me away from it. I believe this is because I am on the right trail.

That theme I'm mentioning? You refer to yourself a lot. I can come up with at least five instances where you infer you are town. At least. And it's happened more and more recently, especially with and around BSnott.

In fact, you even say "I'm town" once. That was D3. Today. lylo. Saying "I'm town" isn't as impressive as "I'm the cop". But it's still roleclaiming. And you've been doing it subtly for a while.

Also, I must say, calling "holding unreasonable opinions that they refuse to reexamine" lying is quite silly. Because it's not. It's holding an unreasonable opinions that one refuses to reexamine. Which isn't lying. It's holding an opinion that may or may not be wrong.

And when it comes to total volume of words. Imp. Honestly.

How much of this post was really necessary? Or this one? And this one which was complained about?

The first was called the behemoth for good reason, and the second one even had just a single sentence quoted!

And, looking back, you were the main reason Kleril, a vanilla town, was lynched. After he unvoted you. Why did you change your mind about him after he unvoted you?
Tiruin:

I don't see it as that, however. One or the other is town or not, and right now the poison-fish is scum'd.

Tiruin:

You're right. I do have to vote at some point. Let's get the pressure going. I'll rebuild Deathsword's case and make my vote.

After I get my cookie dough.

Also this has been a weird game as it comes to BMs, as far as I can understand. Looots of absence. So you're not a bad IC.

So why did you FoS her anyway? Why not vote her?

I was still assembling my case against her. I was also thinking I was keeping my pronouns straight, d'oh.
Why do you think I am scum? What made you think this could be a bus manouver?
BSnott:
Wow my list was bad. Sounds like you can't make it tomorrow at all but I must ask in case I survive:
What is (was) your case on me?
I'd still like to hear the answer posthumously in case I'm dead by the time you read this. Because this looks like a pre-emptive bandwagon to me.