Print

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

[notquitethere]

Having recognized a 'Non-Town-Tell' in myself (and I felt darn Scummy in BYOR12, for all I wasn't Scum) - Should I just relax and know that what's a probable Scum tell in me isn't likely to be a Scum tell in anyone else, and hey, people probably won't even notice when I do it?

Look, I was probably talking differently to Max because he was the only one (in the beginning at least) who was attacking me, so I took on a more cautious and defensive tone. (Also, one of the posts to him was deliberately wordy just so I could fit my breadcrumbing in.) So, addressing people in different ways definitely can be significant, but it's not necessarily significant of what you think it is.

[Max White]

Max

NQT: What was that bit about the last laugh?  I'm sorry buddy, I did try to get you lynched day 1 just so that we could bring you back to life as scum and roll to victory, but best laid plans and all. Although seriously, don't give out early role information! Speaking as scum, we do use that sort of information, your early claim was very useful to us.

Yeah yeah. If I'd have know that a three-person scum team with a choice of convert or kill was a possibility I'd have lynched the lot of you.

Yea, yea. You can claim what ever you like to justify a kind of mafia high ground and that you are beyond being given advice, but we were the benefactors of a misplay that had nothing to do with the number of scum or their powers.


Still, I did what I could to go out of my way and get you lynched with the simple hope that you would come back to life as scum and help you in your first legitimate win, no need to be sore and go on about you would have lynched us all and been a super hero and everybody would love you and you would finally get the money to pay for little Lucy's operation.

[notquitethere]

Yea, yea. You can claim what ever you like to justify a kind of mafia high ground and that you are beyond being given advice, but we were the benefactors of a misplay that had nothing to do with the number of scum or their powers.

Still, I did what I could to go out of my way and get you lynched with the simple hope that you would come back to life as scum and help you in your first legitimate win, no need to be sore and go on about you would have lynched us all and been a super hero and everybody would love you and you would finally get the money to pay for little Lucy's operation.

Hah, perhaps my tone wasn't clear. I'm not that sore about it. I think you all played well and I'm always open to advice. I appreciate your faith in my powers that you'd go out of your way to get me on side (we now know if you'd resurrected me I'd have been a 3rd party).

[Max White]

Wellll.... If we were that sure of you we would have converted you, and frankly Toaster is pretty much assured to be a monster hunter. Seriously he must have killed more people than anybody else in these games. 

But yea, don't give out role info until it actually stands to help the town.

[notquitethere]

Noted. I guess I wanted to make myself appear confirmed town but with a power that made me not worth killing me over.

[Mephansteras]

As part of keeping this beginner friendly, I won't be changing any of the roles or rules from last time. So while you still won't know quite what to expect at the start, if you've read all the previous games you should be in decent shape.

That to me is a double-finger point to look extra close at the 'last time', which is S5.  S5 is the sole game that's had a surviving and escaping Scum team member.

Given what we now know about how the game played out, if instead the Scum team did include Webadict-returned in some fashion, if there was an unnamed 12th player, would that have been 'more bastard or less bastard' than what we actually faced in play?

Does it seem reasonable for us as players to 'ever' rule anything out in a Supernatural game, regardless of if we have never seen it before, or if we've seen something similar or not?

Well, last game was meant more in the sense that if I'd changed any rules between games that S5 would have the rule set we were using.

Adding a hidden player is pretty much full bastard game material. Supernatural messes with Roles and Role Powers, but all the core Mafia rules are always in place.

Not a bad thought, truly, but a bit far afield for a game that isn't listed as a Bastard/Semi-bastard up from.

[Imp]

Noted. I guess I wanted to make myself appear confirmed town but with a power that made me not worth killing me over.

That was one of many factors that made me decide you were probably not town, myself.  Granted, a newbie's opinion of what Town is and isn't likely to be isn't worth much.

But what I mean is  - I read your motive as wanting to make the claim.  And I couldn't find any 'good Town' reason (bad town, good scum, bad scum reasons only) why you would do that.  And I think you're a good player.... so good Scum plan of some flavor then, one worth the risk - probably better for hiding something you fear you couldn't hide.

[Imp]

As part of keeping this beginner friendly, I won't be changing any of the roles or rules from last time. So while you still won't know quite what to expect at the start, if you've read all the previous games you should be in decent shape.

That to me is a double-finger point to look extra close at the 'last time', which is S5.  S5 is the sole game that's had a surviving and escaping Scum team member.

Given what we now know about how the game played out, if instead the Scum team did include Webadict-returned in some fashion, if there was an unnamed 12th player, would that have been 'more bastard or less bastard' than what we actually faced in play?

Does it seem reasonable for us as players to 'ever' rule anything out in a Supernatural game, regardless of if we have never seen it before, or if we've seen something similar or not?

Well, last game was meant more in the sense that if I'd changed any rules between games that S5 would have the rule set we were using.

Adding a hidden player is pretty much full bastard game material. Supernatural messes with Roles and Role Powers, but all the core Mafia rules are always in place.

Not a bad thought, truly, but a bit far afield for a game that isn't listed as a Bastard/Semi-bastard up from.

Heh.  I'm just to newbie then.  By my thinking (and again, I don't 'know' mafia - what you guys see as walls and 'know' wouldn't happen - I have absolutely NO sense of), but to my thinking, what you gave us was about 50-70% harder to figure out than the 'accidental clues' that you actually did place.

[Tiruin]

My 2 cents on this - Tiruin you seem to tend, these days at least, to speak very obliquely in game threads, however you are tending to speak far more directly in the Scum chat.

It's disconcerting to note the great differences, it makes it look like you -do- have control over how directly you speak, and that you are purposefully choosing to not speak clearly when you don't, and choosing to actually speak clearly when you do.

That's disturbing, especially after the game's over - but there's nothing 'actually' wrong with it (it's not rape/murder/theft or actually breaking any rules or anything).  But it is disturbing.

I don't even get how the differences lie. I do the same thing in scumchat, and the same thing in game. If anyone tries to interpret my 'WoTs' as an evasive maneuver, then THEY SHOULD DARN WELL SAY SO other than hate me for it like I'm being a manipulative jerk!

I wouldn't go as far as to say 'disturbing'. Also, people always talk differently in different settings. In a scumchat you're typically not trying to defend yourself or develop complex counterarguments.

And so what I do is wholly disturbing to everyone! Woohoo!

However I was pulling that out of memory. Nobody questions Toony when he takes me trying to expound and explain things yet its all negative?

Fine. Fine. I'll keep to brevity and throw caution to the wind. I mean its not like I'm not fluent in English to note that probably there are misinterpretations or different views of reasoning on what I say. Like everything I'll say will be fully analyzed and looked on as guilty instead of innocent nooooooo
>_>

It didn't make sense how you did it if you had read back. Instead, it got attached to Toaster's..post. Somehow. I saw it as going along Caz' reason at the time.

I think it's paragraphs like this that are the problem. I can't really work out what 'it' is meant to be here. Toony's case? Should I parse what you're saying like this:

Your case didn't make sense how you did it if you had read back. Instead, your case got attached to Toaster's..post. Somehow. I saw your case as going along Caz' reason at the time.

Okay, then what does "attached to Toaster's post" mean? And how was his case "going along Caz' reasoning"? Do you mean he was following Caz and Toaster's cases in his case against you? And if so what was wrong with that? It's all very unclear.

Let me link it. Whatever.

Toony's case on what he's saying.
It's connected to what Toaster's saying somehow.
And my reply gets messed up. NOTE THE REASON FOR THE VOTE which is awfully different from what he said in the link above. 'Mainly' contrasting against 'Don't understand [and are curious on]
The story shifts to my reply on Toaster with no mention of that from any of the links above, directly.

I really don't see how in the world that line of reasoning can get messed up from. Part of his curiosity lies in my sarcasm to Toaster which he took as from a defensive nature.
And I don't do claims like this if I am that role.

You're doing it again.

That isn't even long! D:

I vote you for voting Caz weirdly.  That's all I needed as a reason for my vote.

..Your reason back then was akin to Caz' reason. Shifting votes. You redacted that and did not state the weird part. :S

What I get instead is you shoving down why why why would I do that or where where where was my reasoning to do so.

It didn't make sense how you did it if you had read back. Instead, it got attached to Toaster's..post. Somehow. I saw it as going along Caz' reason at the time.

If I'm caught voting for Caz weirdly (which nobody even tries to explain or elaborate on how, even on a re-search back in-thread), then where the heck is it?! I take the 'voting for Caz weirdly meaning it pertains to my vote and how it relates. Nobody makes note of it, which means that it may be clear to everyone else but me. I don't see it at all given Toony's posts against me. Think's lurker-vote tracker dictates the reason on Toony's vote. Which I don't even see having the reason stated above. Perhaps someone gets it given by what NQT is saying but then it still plays out that I'm unclear. Perhaps the differences lie that my memory is directly tied to it given that I'm remembering how Toony hit me then, and how I approached it. I was voted twice with nothing along those lines of 'you're suspicious because of your vote on Caz.'

Whatever.

I give up. All I do is just a negative effect on others, especially ToonyMan given our history.
*throws up hands*

I wonder if I should just [replace out] quit the player slot or not join at all [...] because of how I speak and how it seems to cause tremendous headaches for everyone else.

Wherein I mean English. Because I made Toony Hate me (or my playstyle. Whatever. It's the same thing on how I communicate.) Whoop-de-frickin'-doo.
Because I sincerely can't even make those short 'nods' towards someone else without getting the wording wrong unlike how most others (thinking of Toaster) do.

[Max White]

Eh, to be honest I just skipped over reading most of the walls of text in this game from everybody, and there were a lot of them...
When you already know that peoples speculation is wrong, it makes for less compelling reading. So yea, the game was a lot of fun, but I spent pretty much all of it in the mafia equivalent of facerolling.

[Tiruin]

Noted. I guess I wanted to make myself appear confirmed town but with a power that made me not worth killing me over.

I believe the only problem was that there was Caz' role

...Meph: Isn't the theory of 'dual-roles on the same scumteam = no' equal a town tell for anyone else? Like NQT. It would be a glaring error to have 2 priests on a scumteam, so I guessed the best explanation is that there's a fakeclaim.

Eh, to be honest I just skipped over reading most of the walls of text in this game from everybody, and there were a lot of them...
When you already know that peoples speculation is wrong, it makes for less compelling reading. So yea, the game was a lot of fun, but I spent pretty much all of it in the mafia equivalent of facerolling.

Facerolling? Mafia equivalent?

[Max White]

Facerolling refers to rolling your face across the keyboard and just depending on winning through abuse of abilities rather than any level of skill.

[Mephansteras]

...Meph: Isn't the theory of 'dual-roles on the same scumteam = no' equal a town tell for anyone else? Like NQT. It would be a glaring error to have 2 priests on a scumteam, so I guessed the best explanation is that there's a fakeclaim.

Precisely the reason I use a script for stuff like that. It balances stuff out, so if you managed to have, say, two Fortune Tellers on the same Scumteam it'd require a very powerful town to counter it. But it's quite possible. The script only restricts specific roles (like only 1 Vampire Lord total).

Two priests would be...risky for scum to use, since the chances of having two scum priests that would both res someone the way scum wants is very low. Still possible, though, depending on how everything else balances out.

[notquitethere]

Tiruin

I wouldn't go as far as to say 'disturbing'. Also, people always talk differently in different settings. In a scumchat you're typically not trying to defend yourself or develop complex counterarguments.

And so what I do is wholly disturbing to everyone! Woohoo!

Um... in case you didn't notice, I was actually defending you. I don't think you're disturbing. (I think you overreact a bit sometimes but you're a teenager and so that's somewhat understandable.)

I think Toony's point is that often it's not immediately clear what you're trying to say and so it makes it a tad more effort to argue against you.

I'm sure you have difficulties understanding what I have to say sometimes (like with the the idioms and Britishisms I use), so it goes both ways.

[Imp]

...Meph: Isn't the theory of 'dual-roles on the same scumteam = no' equal a town tell for anyone else? Like NQT. It would be a glaring error to have 2 priests on a scumteam, so I guessed the best explanation is that there's a fakeclaim.

Precisely the reason I use a script for stuff like that. It balances stuff out, so if you managed to have, say, two Fortune Tellers on the same Scumteam it'd require a very powerful town to counter it. But it's quite possible. The script only restricts specific roles (like only 1 Vampire Lord total).

Two priests would be...risky for scum to use, since the chances of having two scum priests that would both res someone the way scum wants is very low. Still possible, though, depending on how everything else balances out.

Yeah.  I got 'disagreed with' for stuff that makes no sense to me.

I had no problem with the idea that there could be two priests (or two anythings) on Scum team.  NQT's insistent 'defense' that he had to be Town, in part because of the proof of there being a Scum priest - that gave NQT Scum points to me.  Why is it impossible?  How is it impossible?  Was it ever said anywhere to be impossible?  Nope to all - and here we're told that yeah, it is possible.

Though I had -no- idea that it was -Tiruin- and not NQT who was the cult converter, I did suspect and pretty loudly that they had one.  If NQT had tried -less- hard to prove himself town by using 'non-facts' (we don't know who ressed Nerjin, we don't know if NQT is a priest, we don't know if NQT is also Scum and thus had access to knowing Caz was a priest - we don't know if NQT had reason to hide as one sort of converter by 'over-proof' of him being another sort of converter), well, if NQT hadn't been so intense about 'of course I am Town and only a fool wouldn't see that' - then I'd have had less of a problem.

Because wrong though I clearly am, NQT - your actions throughout did not look Town to me.  Maybe I am the only one to blame for this, maybe the 'fault' is purely that Imp's to new to know what to look for or how to understand what she sees.  But dang, NQT.

Meph, are you willing to confirm or deny that a Scum priest does have a chance to raise a dead Town as their previous alignment and role?

That's another thing NQT insisted on as a 'fact' that I don't see as being any sort of fact at all - it's solidly unproven.