Print

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

[Jack A T]

GreatWyrmGold: Your post was largely harmless.  However, the act of posting about active games outside of the games ranges anywhere from "largely harmless, but in poor taste" to "game-ruining."  Furthermore, it is quite difficult to make a clear rule that bans all of the significantly game-damaging posts without banning the largely harmless ones.  Thus, the act of posting about active games outside of the games is both banned on most Mafia forums and considered to be incredibly poor manners.

Is that good enough?

Tn5421: You may want to confirm that you're in the new BM.

[Tiruin]

There is a wholly existent rule that you should not talk about an ongoing game you played in in another thread sans said thread's deadchat, if available. See: BAH POST. [Also no, the 'tell the truth part' as an attachment is wholly wrong--you should NOT talk about it. Period.]
2. See: Above. If the game is over, you may talk about it freely. That one is correct.

Why shouldn't I talk about it? You keep saying this, over and over. It's circular logic, and I've never seen the circle's beginning, yet you expect me to trust it.

I...thought we explained it quite well back there. :x All those notes about people in other places and such.

How do you even understand that.

In other words, I shouldn't be able to understand that.
Are you trying to insult me, or are you just not thinking before you hit post?

Wat. How did you even parse 'shouldn't' from that o_o
I'm asking you how you understand that (but...sure. I hit the wrong key adjacent to the key in question >_>)

It's like this: Comparison and Observation. It skews the thoughts of an onlooker as one side is familiar to him, and the other is not-yet both state [the same] similar things.

...
I don't get how this connects to the question at hand. Saying something outside makes you more familiar to those inside, which significantly affects decisions? If so, wouldn't it be illogical to play mafia on forums where people know each other? In fact, since I'm fairly well-known and often-posting, and hence familiar to many, I probably stop playing mafia so my familiarity doesn't cause people to view my statements in a different light!

You're. Generalizing.

We're talking about the Mafia board. If you're dead in one thread--an ongoing game, and choose to speak about it IN ANOTHER THREAD, it is a bad thing if and unless you speak about it in an emotional context (ie Argghh if I wasn't dead there I'd...) with a literal cut off there for imagination to fill it in.
Now if you said something else like (I'm town in (this part)) and stuff along alignment [town/scum/{third-party}] then it'd be worse for those playing as you're basically spoiling other people who would look at said thread. Including any potential player.

Good, you got it.

Glad you think so! Sadly, I suspect that your interpretation of me getting it is based on you not getting what I said.
"Null statement" means that it's a statement that doesn't affect my perceptions at all (in this case, because it makes equally much sense no matter what the other player is).

...That's basically what I'm saying. It's a null statement. You got the idea. :v I fully got what you said.

PPE: Also what Jack said. I should've noted the intervals of how much harm it would do. Oops :x

[GreatWyrmGold]

GreatWyrmGold: Your post was largely harmless.  However, the act of posting about active games outside of the games ranges anywhere from "largely harmless, but in poor taste" to "game-ruining."

...

Is that good enough?

No, because you've never explained how it could be anything but harmless. How does it cause harm?

Why shouldn't I talk about it? You keep saying this, over and over. It's circular logic, and I've never seen the circle's beginning, yet you expect me to trust it.

I...thought we explained it quite well back there. :x All those notes about people in other places and such.

...
Great argument. "Our explanation was so good. How could you not have understood us?"
You're really good at accidentally calling people stupid, by the way.

How do you even understand that.

In other words, I shouldn't be able to understand that.
Are you trying to insult me, or are you just not thinking before you hit post?

Wat. How did you even parse 'shouldn't' from that o_o
I'm asking you how you understand that (but...sure. I hit the wrong key adjacent to the key in question >_>)

"How do you understand that" implies that my understanding is an unexpected event.
Well, that explains that.

This bodes well.
Incidentally, that was sarcasm. You're coming off as a crybaby and someone who realizes they've lost, they can't come up with an answer, so they try to make their opponent feel bad for hurting their feelings.

You're. Generalizing.

We're talking about the Mafia board. If you're dead in one thread--an ongoing game, and choose to speak about it IN ANOTHER THREAD, it is a bad thing if and unless you speak about it in an emotional context (ie Argghh if I wasn't dead there I'd...) with a literal cut off there for imagination to fill it in.
Now if you said something else like (I'm town in (this part)) and stuff along alignment [town/scum/{third-party}] then it'd be worse for those playing as you're basically spoiling other people who would look at said thread. Including any potential player.

You're asserting things without backing them up. Please back them up. How would any of those statements affect anything?

Let me put it this way. You'd be fine with me saying them in-thread, yes? So why is it any different if I post them here?

...That's basically what I'm saying. It's a null statement. You got the idea. :v I fully got what you said.

...How did you conclude that me saying "what people say in other threads doesn't matter" meant "he agrees with us that it's bad to talk in other threads! Yai!"

[Tiruin]

Why shouldn't I talk about it? You keep saying this, over and over. It's circular logic, and I've never seen the circle's beginning, yet you expect me to trust it.

I...thought we explained it quite well back there. :x All those notes about people in other places and such.

...
Great argument. "Our explanation was so good. How could you not have understood us?"
You're really good at accidentally calling people stupid, by the way.

Alright, first: cut that passive aggressive carp.
I find it a weakness of yours that you easily turn towards the negatives and assume much more than is stated when such things come up. You see wrong when there is none.

Grab what we've explained and tell us what you don't understand. Just asking 'Why' doesn't specify the matter when it has been explained once.

"How do you understand that" implies that my understanding is an unexpected event.
Well, that explains that.

You're concluding without even detailing it.
Just like how you concluded I "implied" that you shouldn't understand it. >_>

This bodes well.
Incidentally, that was sarcasm. You're coming off as a crybaby and someone who realizes they've lost, they can't come up with an answer, so they try to make their opponent feel bad for hurting their feelings.

Bring on the Passive aggressive BS, kid. Bring on the teasing terms Mr Condescension.
You should learn well that you aren't always right.
So I ask you now.

Drop that attitude.

]
Let me put it this way. You'd be fine with me saying them in-thread, yes? So why is it any different if I post them here?

1. You are dead. Whatever knowledge you gained as a player in-game cannot be uttered unless in deadchat, if available or after game.
Because you take on your role as a player, and not you as a...well, you. Out of game.

...That's basically what I'm saying. It's a null statement. You got the idea. :v I fully got what you said.

...How did you conclude that me saying "what people say in other threads doesn't matter" meant "he agrees with us that it's bad to talk in other threads! Yai!"

I seriously don't understand how you jump from statements to put conclusions to where they don't belong.
I was pointing that statement at:

Yes.  That is most acceptably better.

Now you should've PROVED IT BY TRAIL OF FIRE AND WORD than just stating 'Oh no I'm town I'm town; why?!'
Because other townies don't know that, for one. Next: How would you treat someone playing the 'hey dudes I'm town' card? :v

How would I react? "He wants people to think he's a townie. If he's a townie, of course he'd want people to think he was a townie so he didn't get mislynched. If he was a mafia, of course he'd want people to think he was a townie so he didn't get lynched. No useful information can be derived."
Null statement.

Good, you got it.

Glad you think so! Sadly, I suspect that your interpretation of me getting it is based on you not getting what I said.
"Null statement" means that it's a statement that doesn't affect my perceptions at all (in this case, because it makes equally much sense no matter what the other player is).

...That's basically what I'm saying. It's a null statement. You got the idea. :v I fully got what you said.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Grab what we've explained and tell us what you don't understand. Just asking 'Why' doesn't specify the matter when it has been explained once.

What I don't understand is something you've repeatedly asserted but never explained. Your request is granted later in the previous post.

You're concluding without even detailing it.
Just like how you concluded I "implied" that you shouldn't understand it. >_>

Alright, how do you think I should have read that?

]Bring on the Passive aggressive BS, kid. Bring on the teasing terms Mr Condescension.
You should learn well that you aren't always right.
So I ask you now.
Drop that attitude.

I get a teeny bit frustrated after cycling between three arguments, largely with the same person, in two out of three with said person failing to see what is to me perfectly clear logic (and the third more understandable, but said person requires of me a task I thought impossible until very recently).

1. You are dead. Whatever knowledge you gained as a player in-game cannot be uttered unless in deadchat, if available or after game.
Because you take on your role as a player, and not you as a...well, you. Out of game.

Last I checked, I hadn't died in that game and death would give me no special information if I had.
We essentially get back into that rule about how you're supposed to be honest out-of-game, which has issues I've countered and which you said didn't exist. The problem only exists if you assume honesty from person-out-of-game.

...That's basically what I'm saying. It's a null statement. You got the idea. :v I fully got what you said.

...How did you conclude that me saying "what people say in other threads doesn't matter" meant "he agrees with us that it's bad to talk in other threads! Yai!"

I seriously don't understand how you jump from statements to put conclusions to where they don't belong.
I was pointing that statement at:

Yes.  That is most acceptably better.

Now you should've PROVED IT BY TRAIL OF FIRE AND WORD than just stating 'Oh no I'm town I'm town; why?!'
Because other townies don't know that, for one. Next: How would you treat someone playing the 'hey dudes I'm town' card? :v

How would I react? "He wants people to think he's a townie. If he's a townie, of course he'd want people to think he was a townie so he didn't get mislynched. If he was a mafia, of course he'd want people to think he was a townie so he didn't get lynched. No useful information can be derived."
Null statement.

Good, you got it.

Glad you think so! Sadly, I suspect that your interpretation of me getting it is based on you not getting what I said.
"Null statement" means that it's a statement that doesn't affect my perceptions at all (in this case, because it makes equally much sense no matter what the other player is).

...That's basically what I'm saying. It's a null statement. You got the idea. :v I fully got what you said.

If you throw an argument in the air, am I supposed to not expect it to come back down?

[griffinpup]

Okay, this is just stupid in general, but I do want to say something

GWG:

Surely you get that everyone else isn't gonna drop their opinions on the issue.  Why don't you just drop the issue, and not post in-game content out-of-thread?  It seems like a small sacrifice to pay.

Also, mentioning details out of game can really be harmful.  For example, a dead mafia member complaining how Turuin was a terrible mafia partner, and that's why he's gotten lynched.  Or perhaps mentioning how playing cop adds way more stress into a game, even if it is just a BM.  See how this info could be game-ruining if you just told everyone about it?  And in order to stop things such as this scenario from happening, there's a commonly established rule against talking about ANYTHING in other games, even harmless stuff

[Persus13]

Allow me to elaborate on my earlier argument. Here's an example.

Player A states "If C was scum, he wouldn't be taking this approach, I know, because I've played with him before."

Player B thinks "C and A might be both Mafia, but I'm not sure"

Player D on another ended Mafia game Player B and C are in is watching the first game and says "C doesn't act like this while scum. He's doing the same thing in the other mafia game."

Player B sees this and goes, "Okay, I'm on the wrong track. I'll go after Player E, instead of trying to lynch B and C"

[GreatWyrmGold]

Also, mentioning details out of game can really be harmful.  For example, a dead mafia member complaining how Turuin was a terrible mafia partner, and that's why he's gotten lynched.  Or perhaps mentioning how playing cop adds way more stress into a game, even if it is just a BM.  See how this info could be game-ruining if you just told everyone about it?  And in order to stop things such as this scenario from happening, there's a commonly established rule against talking about ANYTHING in other games, even harmless stuff

Stupid stuff like that? Sure. But...well...that's just dumb. It's like saying you can't discuss violence because of the possibility that someone would go into an overly-graphic explanation of murder, or saying that no one can use "the G word" out of fear of people starting arguments over religion.

Allow me to elaborate on my earlier argument. Here's an example.
[Thread A] Player A states "If C was scum, he wouldn't be taking this approach, I know, because I've played with him before."
Player B thinks "C and A might be both Mafia, but I'm not sure"
[Thread B] Player D on another ended Mafia game Player B and C are in is watching the first game and says "C doesn't act like this while scum. He's doing the same thing in the other mafia game."
Player B sees this and goes, "Okay, I'm on the wrong track. I'll go after Player E, instead of trying to lynch B and C"

Before I comment, let me see if I understand the scenario correctly. Look above; are the posts in the correct threads?

[Tiruin]

Also, mentioning details out of game can really be harmful.  For example, a dead mafia member complaining how Turuin was a terrible mafia partner, and that's why he's gotten lynched.  Or perhaps mentioning how playing cop adds way more stress into a game, even if it is just a BM.  See how this info could be game-ruining if you just told everyone about it?  And in order to stop things such as this scenario from happening, there's a commonly established rule against talking about ANYTHING in other games, even harmless stuff

Stupid stuff like that? Sure. But...well...that's just dumb. It's like saying you can't discuss violence because of the possibility that someone would go into an overly-graphic explanation of murder, or saying that no one can use "the G word" out of fear of people starting arguments over religion.

Err...underlying details.
I've to ask: Why are those scenarios related to what we're giving there? That's in a Mafia context (and not real world context, your examples are good proofs of silly and...ugh-y ideas though ) wherein when you play in a Mafia game--you assume the role and alignment you have and will be treated as such.

Liek Toaster said: In-game, dagger behind. Out of game, dagger in front.

[tn5421]

I confirmed my pre-in for the next BM. 

[Persus13]

Allow me to elaborate on my earlier argument. Here's an example.
[Thread A] Player A states "If C was scum, he wouldn't be taking this approach, I know, because I've played with him before."
Player B thinks "C and A might be both Mafia, but I'm not sure"
[Thread B] Player D on another ended Mafia game Player B and C are in is watching the first game and says "C doesn't act like this while scum. He's doing the same thing in the other mafia game."
Player B sees this and goes, "Okay, I'm on the wrong track. I'll go after Player E, instead of trying to lynch B and C"

Before I comment, let me see if I understand the scenario correctly. Look above; are the posts in the correct threads?
[/quote]
Yes.

[griffinpup]

Also, mentioning details out of game can really be harmful.  For example, a dead mafia member complaining how Turuin was a terrible mafia partner, and that's why he's gotten lynched.  Or perhaps mentioning how playing cop adds way more stress into a game, even if it is just a BM.  See how this info could be game-ruining if you just told everyone about it?  And in order to stop things such as this scenario from happening, there's a commonly established rule against talking about ANYTHING in other games, even harmless stuff

Stupid stuff like that?

Yes, stupid stuff like that.  Surely somehow, somewhere through your lifelong travels you've found someone that was stupid.  Rules aren't usually made for people that are smart, GWG.  Rules are usually made to stop stupid people from doing stupid things.  Or smart people from doing stupid things.  Stopping at a four way stop, regardless of how busy it is, is still a rule.  Even when there's absolutely no traffic, this is a rule.  Now why would this be?  Oh yeah, to stop people from doing stupid stuff.  Letting someone choose individually when they will and will not run a stop sign is obviously a horrendous idea, because eventually they'd make the stupid decision and go when other cars are going.  This mafia rule runs under the same principle.  It would be amazing if no one ever made a mistake ever, and could post extensively about other ongoing games without harming and game ever.  But that wouldn't happen.  And since games would be harmed, because people are stupid, there has been a rule that prevents the talking about other games, even if it could be harmless

[GreatWyrmGold]

I've to ask: Why are those scenarios related to what we're giving there? That's in a Mafia context (and not real world context, your examples are good proofs of silly and...ugh-y ideas though ) wherein when you play in a Mafia game--you assume the role and alignment you have and will be treated as such.

1. They're analogies.
2. The fact that those rules are "silly and ugh-y" is kinda the point.

Liek Toaster said: In-game, dagger behind. Out of game, dagger in front.

And why is that?

Allow me to elaborate on my earlier argument. Here's an example.
[Thread A] Player A states "If C was scum, he wouldn't be taking this approach, I know, because I've played with him before."
Player B thinks "C and A might be both Mafia, but I'm not sure"
[Thread B] Player D on another ended Mafia game Player B and C are in is watching the first game and says "C doesn't act like this while scum. He's doing the same thing in the other mafia game."
Player B sees this and goes, "Okay, I'm on the wrong track. I'll go after Player E, instead of trying to lynch B and C"

Before I comment, let me see if I understand the scenario correctly. Look above; are the posts in the correct threads?
(/quote)
Yes.

Alright. So, you're telling me that D saying C doesn't act like scum in game A, while in game B, is going to convince player B that player C is scum in game A. Correct?

Yes, stupid stuff like that.  Surely somehow, somewhere through your lifelong travels you've found someone that was stupid.  Rules aren't usually made for people that are smart, GWG.  Rules are usually made to stop stupid people from doing stupid things.  Or smart people from doing stupid things.  Stopping at a four way stop, regardless of how busy it is, is still a rule.  Even when there's absolutely no traffic, this is a rule.  Now why would this be?  Oh yeah, to stop people from doing stupid stuff.  Letting someone choose individually when they will and will not run a stop sign is obviously a horrendous idea, because eventually they'd make the stupid decision and go when other cars are going.  This mafia rule runs under the same principle.  It would be amazing if no one ever made a mistake ever, and could post extensively about other ongoing games without harming and game ever.  But that wouldn't happen.  And since games would be harmed, because people are stupid, there has been a rule that prevents the talking about other games, even if it could be harmless

There's a difference between making people stop at four-way stop signs to protect peoples' lives, and making them stop at all intersections, no matter where they are, when all that's on the line is the possibility of theoretically having your perceptions influenced, which affects only a game.

[Tiruin]

You can't spot all the errors, GWG, at any one time.
Debating that standpoint is futile.

[GreatWyrmGold]

And you can't debate that the Earth is round. What's your point?