Print

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

[Tiruin]

Tiruin

That's not much of an argument, NQT. Rather a lacking explanation for your own words.
So what if I put my vote on the person? What about the others?

What do you mean 'what about the others'? It's a pretty big deal to put a vote on a player that you know is town. That's why I'm voting you.

...And? *whirls hand in circles*
This feels like it should be continued so I can get your point.
You have a very superficial judgement there.

Since you didn't get what I meant about 'what about the others', I figure you forgot your own premise being 'what about hammers'. Because that's a pretty big deal, eh?

Concerned? I'm so laid back here, I'm horizontal. If a player makes a claim, I like to know whether they're being serious or just making stuff up. A newb-scum tactic might be to scare players off lynching him by claiming Paranoid Gun Owner or somesuch.

...You seriously think they didn't read the nerf list, huh?
^{Also being that laid back isn't good for your body...}
Problem with that is your basis of comparison is from what is and shouldn't exist, to a vast array of what exists--hence my note on rolefishing. [Basis: Nerf list comparison; suspicion: Probable basing on power on role]
How would you love to know that, and how much does it matter to you about people making a claim this early?

(I'd say that theory is too much up for question as it relates to how the perception of the player is, in the time being, and not necessarily according to their alignment; as in, based on their understanding, their motive, and playstyle instead of alignment--this is OOC talk btw.)

How? I press one key on the keyboard after another.

You snarker, you.

I can see what you say you were thinking and it doesn't seem particularly pro-town. Are you trying to claim that voting for Toaster was useful? Also, I am doing something useful with my vote: getting rid of scum.

Ahh, yes. The issuance of the generalism 'getting rid of scum' idea: pretty fluff it is.
But that doesn't explain anything rather than explain why the vote exists, sir. It expects who you get rid of who is scummy, and who is scum. And yes, I claim that voting Toaster is useful--this is a general statement. I believe you conclude too quick from that, too. You going to dig up the context for that or be trivial once more?
Let me round the idea to you: That is what I'm doing now, making 'use' of my vote, to appease your pedantry.

[Ottofar]

Otto

Also, mastahcheese,

Normally, I ask for you to elaborate, but since Toasty scum is already doing that, I'll just point out that you just admitted to lurking, which is, from what I've been able to gather, far more universally accepted to be considered "scummy".

How is this not deflection, one of my favourite scumtells?

Err...how is that deflection?
What do you see in mastahcheese's motive?

I probably should refamiliarise myself with the terminology, shouldn't I?  Anyways, I feel the post is basically: "I'm not scummy! Look, that experienced guy there said so! Furthermore, the guy saying I'm scummy is scummy himself! He even said so!"

There is a use: Seeing people's perception on terms, grammar and how they use such. I could say something is a pressure vote, then I could check the response (and pull it out afterwards without saying when). A vote is a vote, I could say, but given the feeling on what is a 'lynch' vote-that speaks of sure certainty rather than anything else.

Alright. I just feel that if a vote isn't meant to lynch it doesn't really bear much weight, especially if the person the vote is on knows that.

NQT 'scool

Also, Imp. Guardsman, post more. With your first post you townclaim, then you proceed to  lampshade the action. And drop hints about your role's usefulness. You have four posts, and none of them have real content. Daygame's still a thing, even in a roleheavy setup like this.

[Imperial Guardsman]

Yes. Mastahcheese, perhaps you would like to tell us why you think you are being voted.
Tiruin, tell us what you think of the blantant bandwagoning on you?
NQT, You are a competent mafia player, and that is exactly what I fear. No, It is not a vengekill, If I want to, I can just type the magic words and erase someone from the round. I would consider it a foolproof Desperado (http://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?title=Desperado_(Role) for reference) kill. NQT, for the good of all players in this round, do NOT attempt to kill me, I give no qualms about any other action, as long as I survive to Day 2 to make myself of use. I reccomend a watcher or doctor come on me, for you have no reason to fear me.
Ottofar, You are my top scumpick. Please attempt to prove your innocence. Your lurking and attempt to point out deflection in your own defense makes me rightfully suspicious.

[Toaster]

Tiruin:

Toaster: I assume your vote is sticking? Why?

Yes.  As of this moment, you're my top suspect, chiefly for pointlessly someone you got a town inspect on.  I don't buy that you did it just for an antilurk vote, given that there are five other people that you could have targeted.


Shakerag:

Toaster:  What do you think the odds are that IG has a daykill?

Reasonable enough, considering he did say it was one shot.


Ottofar:

Toaster, mastah I think it's a way to activelurk. You get to safely deposit your vote in a nonthreatening manner. Also, there's no real pressure, because nobody is going to pressurehammer anybody.

I see.  I don't agree, but I see.


NQT:

Toaster

I've stopped voting for no reason in RVS.  If I'm voting, there's a reason I'm doing it.

So you know Tiruin is scum?

And instead lose when they don't get the current king lynched?  Considering you cannot win if you're town, I don't see any benefit to holding back.  Interesting that you disagree, though.

No, I hear what you're saying, and I still think it's smartest to claim if you have the info, but some players might want to try killing King Mafia subtly or something.

No.  I suspect she is, and more than anyone else.

Fair enough, then.


Imperial Guardsman:

Ottofar, You are my top scumpick. Please attempt to prove your innocence.

That's not how it works.  You prove he's scum, not he proves he isn't.


If you think the Tiruin is a "blatant bandwagon," why aren't you voting someone on it?

[Shakerag]

[just remembered the anti-lurk and don't have time for more of a post]
Imperial Guardsman:  Why am I keeping my vote on you?
[/just remembered the anti-lurk and don't have time for more of a post]

PPE:

Ottofar, You are my top scumpick. Please attempt to prove your innocence.

Seriously?

PPEx2:  Fuck you, Toaster.

[Toaster]

<3

[Imperial Guardsman]

Toaster, I have a kill and a revive. You would be perfectly fine if I killed you, and if you ARENT a king mafia, revive you, correct? However, the revive is not perfect. Your role will change completely, and you have a slightly higher chance of becoming king mafia in the next round if you are the king mafia.

[Tiruin]

pfp

[...]you have a slightly higher chance of becoming king mafia in the next round if you are the king mafia.

Wah?
Also why possibly target Toaster out of everyone present?

Tiruin:

Toaster: I assume your vote is sticking? Why?

Yes.  As of this moment, you're my top suspect, chiefly for pointlessly someone you got a town inspect on.  I don't buy that you did it just for an antilurk vote, given that there are five other people that you could have targeted.

I feel like there's an absent verb between 'pointlessly' and 'someone' here.
@orange: Did you even read what I posted? >_>
Because I believe you would've constructed something I could totally answer (and totally with details) than this reword of an earlier age here if you did.

And instead lose when they don't get the current king lynched?  Considering you cannot win if you're town, I don't see any benefit to holding back.  Interesting that you disagree, though.

No, I hear what you're saying, and I still think it's smartest to claim if you have the info, but some players might want to try killing King Mafia subtly or something.

No.  I suspect she is, and more than anyone else.

Fair enough, then.
[/quote]You could bother by explaining your thought process about it, to enlighten anyone else, for one.

[Imperial Guardsman]

If they are king mafia this round, and I kill them, they have a higher chance of rolling KM again next round. Also, toaster just seems too agressive to be a townie.

[Tiruin]

If they are king mafia this round, and I kill them, they have a higher chance of rolling KM again next round. Also, toaster just seems too agressive to be a townie.

...While the last statement is something I agree with, is there anything that separates personal behavior from what everyone else did?
Also higher chance? I feel like that's fluff, mainly because I doubt you can mess with the mechanics of...being scum.

[Imperial Guardsman]

is there anything that separates personal behavior from what everyone else did?

Hm? What is this uspposed to mean?

[Tiruin]

Like, you see Toaster as aggressive--that's ok, but compared to everyone else, he's your target purely because of being aggressive?

[Tiruin]

As in, his aggressiveness is a larger scumtell than anything scummy you could see in everyone else?

[ToonyMan]

Day ends in about 90 minutes. I probably won't have a vote count up until then.

[Toaster]

IG:

Toaster, I have a kill and a revive. You would be perfectly fine if I killed you, and if you ARENT a king mafia, revive you, correct? However, the revive is not perfect. Your role will change completely, and you have a slightly higher chance of becoming king mafia in the next round if you are the king mafia.

Why would you kill me over your top suspect?  You'd target me over the person you're currently voting?  That doesn't compute.

Also, toaster just seems too agressive to be a townie.

Are you trying to hit me with the Too Townie Fallacy?  Because aggression is not a scumtell.


Tiruin:

I feel like there's an absent verb between 'pointlessly' and 'someone' here.
@orange: Did you even read what I posted? >_>
Because I believe you would've constructed something I could totally answer (and totally with details) than this reword of an earlier age here if you did.

Derp.  Yeah, it should say "pointlessly voting someone."    And I did; not sure what you think I should be concluding.

And I did explain why I'm voting you.  You even quoted it (though admittedly with that pesky missing word.)