...When I said I'd be busy, I didn't think it would be this long >.> RL stuffs, ahoy!
Seriously, do people still think they need to use red to get questions noticed? I never use votes while questioning and haven't had a problem with it. I mean really, when has anybody just been ignored consistently for not using a vote? Also use red for actual voting only, not explaining your point, otherwise it is just annoying for all involved.
Also you haven't actually done much at all since dropping that 'pressure vote' to try and pressure other people, so that story doesn't really check out. We still have plenty of time left in the day, why aren't you using it?
I think I'm either getting Pers' statement or yours wrong, but he said it with quotation marks--emphasizing his point. Also there could be a way to put it in detail,
say, the color maroon. (Ok I'm just pulling your leg here.
) Joking aside, getting [really] back in game later.
Anywhoo
ImpNone the less, if I was running a D&D game with players, I'd feel very confident that I'd dropped a 'reasonable to catch series of clues' even for newbie players - presuming the newbies did what I asked (and what several of them said they were doing).
Haven't done a full read yet but this caught my eye (primarily because of the 15 posts per page format and your post was at the bottom. . .).
You use every kind of experience and method to analyze others?
Secondly, assuming you're town (vanilla), how would you judge a lynch on a person who you primarily think is town? What would you do-and if such, how will you further your goal of picking out the 'badguys'. Wait till next day, let the lynch off, or...?
kleril@All: How would you describe your typical playstyle as town? As scum?
I...post. And I...play. I am an amorphous creature. I change my playstyle every game. I love playing with psychology and philosophy, and generally play for fun rather than egoistical pleasure.
...So yeah. My playstyle is to post. To be pertinent in the post. And to have fun.
How would this generalistic point of view help you?
It doesn't help immensely, but it does shape a picture of you. Some aspects of your post set off my gut in certain ways, but nothing more.
I was hoping your response would glean more about what to expect from you, but I guess it set the stage well enough.
...I do hope that my posts aren't the main cause of gastrointestinal anomalies, because I really don't see how one of my first posts gets your gut in a tussle. What did you see wrong there? Is my shape coming off wrong or unconventional to you?
And on that matter-will what I've said before, in this context, be or seem like a good baseline to hold me to in the future?
NQTTiruin
Tiruin— How do you learn the most from Day One before there's been any kind of flip?
Just as much as anyone learns-via observation. The flip only acts as a dead-end of sorts, to debase or debunk any relative or leading conclusions or notions. If deviations are to follow from said flip, then that is generally a note of suspicion. However I learn usually via observation, and primarily by questioning.
You say deviations, but deviations from what? Do you think there is value in discussing the Day One flip on Day Two?
What use is asking my learning style, given how learning is such a general term? Would it help you understand me more, or is there any other reason you had in mind to inquire this?
Perhaps I should have phrased my question more clearly. I didn't want to know your learning style. On Day One a lot of content is posted. There are ways of shaping discussions so that in future days we can learn things from the interactions. I wanted to see your perspective on this. To put things another way: how should you act on Day One. 'Observation' and 'questions' is so vague. What are observing? What kind of questions are you asking?
> Deviations - something amiss from the train of thought on the moment. The situation is vague or too general to put in exacts, so I tagged it with the most specific term I had at mind, a deviation of, or based on the flip and any preceding thoughts, and to compare pre and post-flip notes of each and every person.
>
"Ouch. So you really don't want to know me?
"Ok, that came off too mellow. I'm wearing an Inquisitorial hat for a reason! :I"The point of observation is reasoning in itself. You observe. Right now, I stare at a bunch of figures and shapes termed letters at a screen and analyze upon a given basepoint--this is what is observing, in my idea. On the basis, I try to find how relevant or pertinent a person's mode of inquiry goes--that is the analysis. People are shooting off many questions around and so forth, yet I feel like some questions are being subtle in context. The queries I ask are what pertain to my suspicions. No more, no less.
"Also there's a spider on your shoulder."All else is just for fun and games on my point. It's like conversation-you can pick out what is sarcasm or trivial to the point if you listen. If not, you poke
everything.
ToonyManAlso I'm voting Imp for voting a player who doesn't exist, you should know better.
...And this signifies her being or having the characteristic of scum because...?
Tiruin
Tiruin dons her Inquisitorial hat and robe.
Yet you're only reacting to questions when asked. Are you going to do some scumhunting of your own?
Interesting vision there
Caz, do you not see scumhunting in the questions I return to the person? Do you see those questions proposed to me as scumhunting?
Or are you just poking me here for the superficial notice that you are 'scumhunting'?
Jim Groovester: You have been resurrected from death. How would you proceed, and how do you convince the town not to lynch you?
Tiruin lowers the front of her hat in a way that it points towards you.
"I am suspicious, sir."This seems specific, and then moving to a general thought. What is your thinking behind the bolded part and why that exact proposition?
MaxTiruin
Why are you asking these definites? Why are you asking my preference given that context?
Given context is RVS, so expect a few random questions.
As for why that question in particular, apart from the fact that it is vague enough in terms of what would be seen as the 'correct' answer to make somebody think they might be making a mistake and get a little defensive, it could provide a little future insight... Maybe. People get paranoid and think more about what could end them rather than what they would end others with, so I guess if you wanted to tag answers then scum would be more worried about their own defense, and town would be more worried about the scum offense... But that hardly qualifies you as confirmed town, and you shouldn't really tag answers like that.
The question served its purpose in providing the potential for new discussion, that is why I'm asking your preferences in that context.
But..but the new discussion left itself on a declarative sentence! D:
Also, I feel like we're...misinterpreting(?) each other? I can't see how I'm tagging something (wherein tagging = exact labeling) other than giving my point there. Or..are you discussing how my actions would relate to being town and how it would stick out to the general public?
Most of that statement is subjective. Paranoia exists in a state wherein it is offset by a trigger--where the right combination of words in general would strike at them, usually in aggression. The mysterious-detective type comes to mind when I think in literature.
Buuut, point taken. Discussion, yes.
...Why did you put in the notion of qualifying as town or not?