Hey
Squill!
You've certainly gotten the short end of my answers recently. Sorry about that, and working on coming current now.
You also tend to pick and choose your way through my questions to you. Here's a couple you've seemed to skip D3:
@Imp: I think it's possible that you are pretending to be upset to appeal to townies. After all, what better way to look like town than, when the game goes poorly, to be the loudest one decrying your fate?
Do you believe I'm trying to look Town by being the loudest one decrying my fate?
Squill, anything you want to talk about?
Here's your 'been waiting' answers:
@Imp: I am not quite sure I follow. What was so imperative(heh) about this question/answer that you needed to put several other things on hold until Tiruin replied? It doesn't make a lot of sense to me, could you clarify?
Sorry to leave you confused for so long. I saw what appeared to me to be multiple clear 'Scum slips' in Tiruin's behavior, and made at a time when it 'could be written off for various innocent reasons' and when 'it really mattered for scum, being immediately before Lylo when extremely few players were active, which increased the power and value to Scum of her actions'. The value increases then because Scum ploys that fail hurt Scum, those that succeed help. The end of a day when there is very low activity from most other players is a pretty darn safe time to take such actions.
I thought at the time that I had a real chance of being able to establish to myself with very strong certainty that Tiruin was Scum, because of these choices and difficulty she (I expected) would have in providing an acceptable explanation - one that provided genuine and consistent non-malevolent intentions that I could follow, understand, and view as likely genuine.
At that point I knew myself to be Town, considered bsnott confirmed Town, and knew there were only three unknowns, two of them Scum. To be able to identify with great certainty even one of those Scum, huge.
If it were possible to verify Tirun's Scumminess, I wanted that done. I could barely focus on anything else, so tightly did I 'sip the air' for words from her to taste to tell what feel she gave me. I saw great strategic value in that determination.
@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.
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.
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.
This is getting a little bit frustrating. I am not saying that bsnott is definitely town, I'm saying that IN IMP'S SCENARIO SPECIFICALLY, the logic still does not work, UNLESS WE KNOW THAT IMP IS TOWN FOR SURE. We do not, therefore IMP'S CASE IS IN NO WAY THE FINAL WORD ON BSNOTT'S ROLE. I really hope that is clear enough, because I'm getting a little bit tired of this.
Actually, I already, and very specifically, addressed this. I did so in this spoiler -
If he and I are both Scum, that's great motive for me to try and prove him Town - but a total waste of time if true. This is how the game would have ended last night, if I and bsnott were both Scum - and it would have been a locked down win.
Shorten votes cancel out extend votes, 1 for 1 basis.
We had 90 minutes to end of game. I remove my extend request (total now 1) - or even switch it to shorten (total now 0). Completely preventing any chance for an extend. bsnott and I both vote for any Town. Squill logs in - the best he could do is say 'extend', but a shorten from either bsnott or myself cancels it. Game ends without extend passing - with at best 2 scum votes on any 1 townie, and Squill adding his vote to rolepgeek's - a tie. Scum victory. If Squill didn't vote, mislynch and Scum victory.
This does not prove that I a not Scum - but it is proof that bsnott and I together cannot be Scum.
The reason why I made -that- post and addressed that concern, is that I realized that I was wrong when I told bsnott that the game had 90 minutes left - because I mistakenly believed we needed 3 extend votes. I explain all that in the post that spoiler links from.
But I mean it - I don't currently agree with what Tiruin has talked about as 'generally frowned upon'. I consider winning when you can win to be entirely appropriate - and drawing out the win when you could end it fast to be 'toying with others'. I don't actually view this as a 'learning game', as in a 'fake game' or a 'kiddie game'.
I'm playing for keeps. I won't break the rules - as I understand them. I won't even bend them much (vague references to games currently in play, which I understand cannot be talked about outside their threads until they have ended... I'm making them. I'm not -sure- its a rule - it's not written in any list of rules I can find - and I have -no- Mafia experience outside of games not yet ended - but I'm currently in 3 games at once, so I -do- have some [and growing!] Mafia experience. Crazy hard not to discuss when seems appropriate or useful in another game!).
But I am playing to win. Not to win a specific way, not to win with beauty or speed (I wanted that, stupid me D1) though I wouldn't refuse such a win. But I am playing -crazy hard- to win. And I have been all game, though there's been several hours when the game has appeared impossible not to lose.
If I and either Squill or bsnott were the Scum team - this game would be over with a Scum win and the only possible preventative would have been Tiruin logging in on time when D3 was supposed to end that first time. If newbie bsnott hadn't found Scum chat yet, I'd have been willing to coach him on what we needed to do to win right there openly in the thread in the final moments of the day if we had to.
Sadly, this cannot be used to 'prove' that I am not Scum, because I have never been given a chance this game to have a clear 'if you are Scum, do this and win' moment by myself - the only player who I believe has is bsnott. Tiruin's test was not that definitive either, as she could not have created a Scum win with a single quick 'correct' action. She also claims she wouldn't do this. Alright.... but I claim I -would-. And I consider it the polite and reasonable thing to do - manuver until you can end the game with your win - then end it cleanly when you can. I expect and appreciate this behavior from my opponents 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 do understand you, but I believe you are wrong. I take a similar stance towards Rolepgeek - he was so unpleasant that no one wanted to interact with him.
However, many players -do- interact with me. I've been asked 'I don't want to take the time to count how many' questions this game, and you are one of the very few players this game who has asked me almost none (prior to D3). Then again, you ask extremely few questions of anyone. I've gotten hostile interactions, curious interactions, friendly interactions, more-or-less pure Scumhunting interactions - some I instigated, and others started by others.
If you are saying 'Imp you may be acting the way you act because it's a great cover for a Scum (which you are) because no one wants to interact with you because of it' - you are basing your question on what I see to be a great fallacy - that no one wants to interact with me - which hasn't been said by anyone all game and which has happened, both with my starting it and others starting it, this entire game. We are.... playing Mafia.... which is a game based in part.... on conflict and suspicion. *blinks*. Most players are likely playing this game with something close to that understanding, at least that's my understanding.
Does this make sense?
And here's a few other questions I have for you:
I think veiled threats might have been a poor choice of words, but I think you get what I mean. I think that you're the most aggressive player in the game, which is both good and bad. Good because it probably puts pressure on scum, but bad because it intimidates people from voting on you, out of fear that you, as an aggressive player, will turn on them. This is not to say that you are definitely or even probably scum, it's just to say that no one has seriously scumhunted against you yet. So I want to ask you: Do you think that there can be a thing as too aggressive in this game? Do you think that it is possible that, by being very aggressive, to deflect scrutiny by means of intimidation?
Puff has restated Deathsword's case that I am Scum and strongly supports it. Puff has reviewed what he calls Deathsword's scumhunting of me, and he also has reclassified at least some of what Rolepgeek has said, which he originally called a two-way flame war, as "RPG does put up good points", at least in terms of my D2 vote on him.
What is your interpretation, considering your statement that "no one has seriously scumhunted against you yet"? Do you consider that serious Scumhunting, or do you consider what Puff has done in presenting his case against me this day to be serious Scumhunting?
How do you define serious Scumhunting, what do you recognize as serious Scumhunting?
When you say:
bad because it intimidates people from voting on you, out of fear that you, as an aggressive player, will turn on them.
Are you considering at all that one vote is almost -never- enough to lynch anyone, especially if players are following the thread?
If I 'turn on someone' - all I can do is type words and place 1 vote. I can try to be convincing, I can try anything I please - but if I act wrongly, if I behave counter to reasonable behavior - that is scummy, yes? There are other players in the game, and each of them has a vote. If I 'turn on someone' in a way that anyone feels as inappropriate, there are many solutions. Some involve words, some involve votes. One person cannot usually lynch anyone, but one person can sure get lynched by behaving wrongly. It's not possible to turn on 'everyone', is it? And if that was done, would that not hasten the lynch of that offending and offensive player (well, maybe not in lylo, but certainly before then?)
Day 2 - you initally vote for Darvi, FoS Deathsword, then unvote, stating
But right now, I think I will unvote. With three, potentially four people inactive, I just can't feel comfortable in voting, as I know that I don't have the whole picture, or nearly as much as I should have.
What do you envision or imagine happening, if this game continues to progress as it has been? Assuming each player's play stays similar to how it's been, the requested replaces just don't appear as the days keep passing, and zombie urist doesn't step in to say 'enough, we are paused' or 'enough, game called on account of rain' - if we're left to muddle around in our own devices and all of us (except maybe you) play as we have been so far - what sorts of choices do you see yourself making? I'd call your current strategy 'try to wait it out, can't get anything done as is'; is that an accurate assessment, and do you think you'd keep using this strategy as time passes without change?
I was thinking that if nobody is replaced when this extension ends, we should stop delaying and play the damn game.
You also say this about extensions:
I am not extending because RPG, for example, has been requesting replacement for probably over a week and no one has stepped in. Now we need three or four replacements, with no sign of ending. Right now, I'm just voting on my "most likely Scum" pick. This game isn't going anywhere unless there's some really sudden replacements, so I just want to push for the end.
You weren't actually voting then, you didn't vote again the rest of that day.
Why did you decide that 'pushing for the end' was the answer you supported the most? Were you giving up on your Wincon, at least for the time, were you 'sort of' boycotting the game, or what?