Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 80

Author Topic: Supernatural 7 - Game over - Town Win!  (Read 195476 times)

Tiruin

  • Bay Watcher
  • Life is too short for worries
    • View Profile
Re: Supernatural 7 - Day 1 - The Council of 13
« Reply #285 on: June 12, 2014, 06:47:24 pm »

But looking back [and by that I mean the post below this quote]--it is implied you two have a quicktopic chat, mm?
Pchaw. I wish.
We would have coordinated and not voted for each other if we had a chat.
Or at least neither of us would be flailing so bad.
@_@
Mhmm.
So your flailing does explain...oh, say, both your wording before?
First note -- stuff stuff flabort third party :O
Second note -- more stuff omg informative role o-o [Did anyone ask flabort why he claimed there? flabort: Why'd you claim there? You do note that such claims are taken into scrutiny, yes?]
Third note -- nuu flabort D: *Impending doom chimes* feeling.

What is your goal with all that?
What do you think is his goal with all that?
IG: Same question--also follow up on my question back there.
Spoiler: Dis wun (click to show/hide)


I can be a temporary replacement - I'll be around for a few weeks and then leaving to a place without internet.
Tiruin, would this work ok for you? Or would you need a permanent replacement?
I dunno o-o
I'm sorta stable at the moment and after today, its a free me for 3 nice days.
I'd venture on a permanent replacement [so as to not bug TWS for being an awesomenice guy] instead. Thanks though :) both of you

...
Spoiler: OOC (click to show/hide)
Logged

notquitethere

  • Bay Watcher
  • PIRATE
    • View Profile
Re: Supernatural 7 - Day 1 - [1 REPLACEMENT NEEDED]
« Reply #286 on: June 12, 2014, 07:58:26 pm »

Defence
For those who are voting me: Toaster, ZU, and Jack, I quite clearly explain my rationale for acting here. Please address my counterpoints and then if you still want me lynched explain why. Also, ZU never even responded to my rebuttal here.



Responses

Wolf
NQT:
Whoever is on the IG lynch: why not kill scum instead?
It's hard to explain why, but this question bothers me.  It feels like you are trying to impose your beliefs on everyone else while still seeming to be polite and questioning.  I don't know exactly what bothers me about this, but it set off an alarm somewhere in my mind.  If I find a way to articulate it, I'll bring it up again, just know that I am watching you closely.
It's good to examine your feelings—if you have a substantive worry then let me know.

Toony
I have to agree with Toaster's attacks on Notquitethere, and I'm feeling that 4maskwolf and NQT are working together for some reason.
The last I read, Toaster was planning to swap his vote to Imperial: he certainly never followed up on my response to his vote despite ample opportunity to do so. It's funny that you should think me and Wolf were in league, but if that's your baseless intuition then so be it.

Actually, yeah, exactly. Who do you think is a good lynch?
In the final part of this post I will perform my reads on everyone and come to a conclusion.

Jack
A lot to break down here, so I'll be taking it paragraph by paragraph. I think some of your fears are coming off as quite reasonable and I can understand how you got to this point, but you're wrong.

And then you come in and tell half the game to look at the trainwreck and start talking about it because it looked like the Guardsman lynch would happen.  At the time, you ask him a few questions, but give no opinion.
Sure, I only told half the game to look at the discussion because the other half already had.

You justify the push to focus on Guardsman by saying you want to make sure nobody stays silent on major lynch ideas, yes.  Of course, you were silent on whether the lynch was good when you told everyone to give opinions.  With your justification, at least, you give your opinion of Guardsman: he's not helpful and behaves irrationally.  Not really thoughts on whether to lynch him.
Well I was genuinely unsure whether it was a good lynch. I did also say that I intended to do a full read before Day's end. That happens below.

You also take a shot at 4maskwolf, and say you suspect him.  For some reason, though, you would rather sit back and keep your old, reasonless flabort vote, instead of voting for someone you suspect.
Flabort had yet to respond to my question, I didn't want to unvote before getting a response back. Standard practice really. I knew there wasn't a super hurry as I'd be about to post plenty before the end of the day.

You're sitting on the sidelines, telling people who to look at and throwing scattered questions around.  Any time you see much attention on a player, you tell half the game to look at that player.  You give little in the way of thoughts on your own, and you repeatedly try to keep the focus of play on whoever gets attention.  Aside from the initial 4maskwolf vote, you don't vote for any suspects.
I can see why you'd take umbrage with this. My thinking was to make everyone responsible for any given lynch, and to get everyone involved in every interesting discussion so scum have to comment on the lynches. I know it's made me look bad, but this has given us way more content to draw on in future games.

1. Who do you think is scum?  Why?
2. Why are you voting for flabort?
3. Why so passive?
1. See below. 2. Was waiting for a decent response at first and then I was waiting to do my full reads. 3. I think forcing interaction from every player isn't passive play, but I can see how you'd expect more attacking from my play so far.

ZU
Jack basically covered what I think about NQT. He seems to be asking "hey guys whats our opinion on lynching xxx" and not having to form his own.
You're not very credible ZU. This definitely wasn't your reason given for voting me before and you've yet to actually address my responses to your case.



Reads

My scumhunting philosophy is largely based on an understanding of commitment or engagement. Scum don't want to vote others, make new cases, or draw attention to themselves. With this in mind, I've reread the entire thread and these are my preliminary conclusions.

Players in Postcount Order

Imperial Guardsman
I think he's probably telling the truth but he's also not made a proper case in the entire game or done anything that remotely resembles scum hunting. He's afraid to make waves, by keeping his vote bouncing back and forth of Wolf, with a smokescreen vote on Flabort claiming the latter is a 3rd party. This, I assume, was to make the scum less likely to night kill Flabort but was so ineptly handled one almost feels sorry for the guy. He's a safe kill for a vigilante, but town should focus on hunting more likely scum.

Wolf
Wolf is very defensive. His stance at the beginning of the game was that he was just going to watch from the sidelines and aggressively defend himself from every vote on him. Defensiveness is a null trait, possibly leaning town: I'm certainly most defensive when I'm righteous in my towniness. However, on its own it isn't very helpful to the cause. He's been deeply involved in the Imperial 3rd party discussions and now has come to the conclusion that we must scumhunt elsewhere, so I'm looking forward to seeing whether he does. Wolf could well be scum, but right now his prickliness comes across as slightly more likely in town. For now.

Jack A T
Jack has made two cases in the game: he voted Imperial over the latter's incredibly irrational play, shouting and flailing in all cap text, but then unvoted when he feared he'd induced a meltdown in an inexperienced player. I think it's more likely that Imperial is just finding his wincon hard to play and is digging himself digger. In any case, Jack unvoted and then later voted for me based on how I drew attention to current spats and my apparent passivity. Both are reasonable things to question. However, Jack's vote is the third on me so carries a greater weight. I'd be interested to see what he does next, but right now I have no strong reasons to suspect Jack from his D1 play.

Toaster
Toaster, despite wading heavily into the Imperial affair, has only placed one vote in the game and that's on me. I addressed his points and he had made posts after that, even saying in one that he was most likely going to switch to Imperial. Now the latter has all but full-claimed. He's spent a lot of time pumping IG; I'd like to see him do some real scum hunting. Slight scum read here.

Flabort
Votes Imperial, saying "It's clear he is scum, but wants 3rd Party victory far less than he wants a town victory", but this case is wholly withdrawn when Imperial claims to be his lover watching out for him. Then he makes a loose case on Toaster, which is revoked after being revisited. This willingness to re-examine one's cases is admirable, but the lack of commitment to a lynch is also something we often see in scum who don't want to make enemies. My read on him somewhat depends on what he does next, but right now he's a fair candidate for being town. It's possible his spreadsheet method is used as a false screen to show objectivity where there is none.

Tiruin
Replaces out which justifies her not fully committing to the game, but then has over a dozen chatty posts where she mostly just asks people to point out things she's missed in the thread. Pretty much no content until she launches her Toaster attack, when the latter claims that third parties often side with scum at the end of the game, which is true. But her puzzlement does seem genuine, if misplaced. It's not something to lynch someone over though. I could believe Tiruin is scum at this stage.

Persus13
Votes Imperial over his obsession with 3rd parties, then swaps to Jiokuy over a comment about it looking bad if Imp flips scum, that's dropped and he returns to voting Imperial over the question of the plausibility of his flavour. Plainly, if Persus were scum, he'd be more likely to pursue a mislynch on a town player than try to show a claimed 3rd party is in fact not what he claims. I'm erring town for now.

Ottofar
Attacks Wolf for question dodging. Reasonable enough. Presses Imperial for a full claim and is instrumental in bringing it about and keeps his vote on him still. Safe bet to kill 3rd parties, but is that scumhunting? Otto could be any alignment right now. Let's see if he keeps his vote on IG.

Jiokuy
Says he's going to ask questions, doesn't really. Says we should focus away from 3rd parties and on to lurkers (and has only 6 low-content posts himself), but makes no effort personally towards that end. Last thing he did was respond to a mild attack. Has yet to make a vote. I'd lynch him now, but he says he's been away at a funeral which is a pretty good reason for low involvement. I'm thinking: give him the benefit of the doubt today and hang him high tomorrow if he doesn't up his game.

Zombie Urist
Does he only post from his phone? He's taking his hyper-terse, mondo-passive style to dizzying heights of noninvolvement. Read his posts if you like. There's only six of them and there's almost nothing in them. He has a case on me, but won't actually address me. Only his very last post shows any sort of sliver of proactive engagement. I'm having a hard time believing that he's a force for good in this game.

Toony
He only has five posts in the game but he manages to pack in a lot of responses. His only real case, if it can be called that, is a question to Wolf and Imperial to ask them to explain themselves. He gets mad with Imperial for full claiming, and then says I'm in league with Wolf but doesn't offer any reason for this suspicion. He maintains his Wolf vote for defensiveness, which seems reasonable but I'm not convinced by his whole demeanour. Scum lean.

Jim
Has to post anything of substance. Here, he says he's skimmed the game and asks one person one question, then later he says he's not able to actually read the thread right now (but crucially he does follow up on that one question). This seems like he's just more pressed for time than intentionally lurking. Hopefully see something of substance and a vote from him before the end of the day. Not enough info to say anything about his alignment right now.
Logged

Tiruin

  • Bay Watcher
  • Life is too short for worries
    • View Profile
Re: Supernatural 7 - Day 1 - [1 REPLACEMENT NEEDED]
« Reply #287 on: June 12, 2014, 08:10:41 pm »

Tiruin
Replaces out which justifies her not fully committing to the game, but then has over a dozen chatty posts where she mostly just asks people to point out things she's missed in the thread. Pretty much no content until she launches her Toaster attack, when the latter claims that third parties often side with scum at the end of the game, which is true. But her puzzlement does seem genuine, if misplaced. It's not something to lynch someone over though. I could believe Tiruin is scum at this stage.
So do you have backing for that or do you care enough to do more than generalize?
Because 'mostly just asks people to point out things I've missed' isn't saying much.

Not fully committed to the game? You try coping with [. . .]
Logged

Imperial Guardsman

  • Bay Watcher
  • [FANATICISM INTENSIFIES]
    • View Profile
Re: Supernatural 7 - Day 1 - [1 REPLACEMENT NEEDED]
« Reply #288 on: June 12, 2014, 08:15:54 pm »

Im perfectly willing to revive mislynches, everyone.
Logged

Tiruin

  • Bay Watcher
  • Life is too short for worries
    • View Profile
Re: Supernatural 7 - Day 1 - [1 REPLACEMENT NEEDED]
« Reply #289 on: June 12, 2014, 08:17:03 pm »

Im perfectly willing to revive mislynches, everyone.
I'd love an answer to my question.
Logged

Imperial Guardsman

  • Bay Watcher
  • [FANATICISM INTENSIFIES]
    • View Profile
Re: Supernatural 7 - Day 1 - [1 REPLACEMENT NEEDED]
« Reply #290 on: June 12, 2014, 08:17:27 pm »

Im perfectly willing to revive mislynches, everyone.
I'd love an answer to my question.
wot
Logged

Tiruin

  • Bay Watcher
  • Life is too short for worries
    • View Profile
Re: Supernatural 7 - Day 1 - [1 REPLACEMENT NEEDED]
« Reply #291 on: June 12, 2014, 08:18:56 pm »

Logged

Imperial Guardsman

  • Bay Watcher
  • [FANATICISM INTENSIFIES]
    • View Profile
Re: Supernatural 7 - Day 1 - [1 REPLACEMENT NEEDED]
« Reply #292 on: June 12, 2014, 08:20:22 pm »

Logged

Tiruin

  • Bay Watcher
  • Life is too short for worries
    • View Profile
Re: Supernatural 7 - Day 1 - [1 REPLACEMENT NEEDED]
« Reply #293 on: June 12, 2014, 08:21:44 pm »

Could I get full answers to my questions and not one-liners instead?
That kind of brevity does not do you any good.
Append an answer as if I'm also asking an invisible 'why' at the end.
Logged

Imperial Guardsman

  • Bay Watcher
  • [FANATICISM INTENSIFIES]
    • View Profile
Re: Supernatural 7 - Day 1 - [1 REPLACEMENT NEEDED]
« Reply #294 on: June 12, 2014, 08:25:11 pm »

Could I get full answers to my questions and not one-liners instead?
That kind of brevity does not do you any good.
Append an answer as if I'm also asking an invisible 'why' at the end.
Flabort dying is bad for my wincon. I am one person and not that powerful. Flabort just claimed investigative. What do you expect me to do if I need him alive?
Logged

notquitethere

  • Bay Watcher
  • PIRATE
    • View Profile
Re: Supernatural 7 - Day 1 - [1 REPLACEMENT NEEDED]
« Reply #295 on: June 12, 2014, 08:27:53 pm »

Tiruin
So do you have backing for that or do you care enough to do more than generalize?
Because 'mostly just asks people to point out things I've missed' isn't saying much.
I'm saying you haven't said much. But sure, I can back this up.

Your first five posts you say nothing related to this game (mostly because you're busy I guess) and then you ask for replacement.

Your sixth post you say you're still playing and ask IG a question. Your seventh is your first substantial post of the game, in which you answer questions and make a mild defence of Wolf (which hopefully people will remember if either of you flip scum).

In much of your other posts you ask people to clarify Flabort and Imperial's claims because you've only skimmed the game. Like, here (it was obvious what Imperial meant by 'Townside' if you'd read his numerous defence of that point) and here (you don't realise Flabort claimed, showing that you've not really read what's going on).

Not fully committed to the game? You try coping with [. . .]
That's all okay as you've got RL worries and you plan to replace out, but it doesn't give me much confidence in your alignment.

Imperial
But you can only revive once, right? So that'd be mislynch singular, right?
Logged

Imperial Guardsman

  • Bay Watcher
  • [FANATICISM INTENSIFIES]
    • View Profile
Re: Supernatural 7 - Day 1 - [1 REPLACEMENT NEEDED]
« Reply #296 on: June 12, 2014, 08:29:57 pm »

Imperial
But you can only revive once, right? So that'd be mislynch singular, right?
Yes. I have commendable grammar but in a game of Mafia I can't be expected to keep it up.
Logged

Tiruin

  • Bay Watcher
  • Life is too short for worries
    • View Profile
Re: Supernatural 7 - Day 1 - [1 REPLACEMENT NEEDED]
« Reply #297 on: June 12, 2014, 08:30:45 pm »

@IG A better explanation than 'I claimed because he claimed'.
Because that gives no details and poses the question, 'why'.

What I would most likely expect is you to NOT claim because it is confounding that you DID claim.
It's like your claim would somehow erase what he said there, despite me being able to click one link and see 'oh, flabort claimed'.

Now cut with the hypotheticals and give a straight answer to my questions, please.

PPE: Bleh, have to go to school.

Not fully committed to the game? You try coping with [. . .]
That's all okay as you've got RL worries and you plan to replace out, but it doesn't give me much confidence in your alignment.
That makes me as happy as I was in that one circus Mafia game.
Logged

4maskwolf

  • Bay Watcher
  • 4mask always angle, do figure theirs!
    • View Profile
Re: Supernatural 7 - Day 1 - [1 REPLACEMENT NEEDED]
« Reply #298 on: June 12, 2014, 08:32:13 pm »

Tiruin: Your vote is on Toaster, yet you are chasing the imperial guardsmen rabbit that has gotten us nowhere.  We now have a revealed third party, at least to the best of our knowledge.  What do you expect to get out of this questioning?

Toony: When you get back from drinking with your buddies, could you give us your reads.  Thanks.

NQT: Once more, you sit back on your pedestal and direct others what to do.  You say "it will be interesting to see if he actually does that" with regards to my scumhunting, yet do not scumhunt a great deal yourself in the same post.  I'm smelling a contradiction here.  In fact, I'm pretty sure there are no ? in your entire post.

PPE x3: Oh look, NQT asks a semantics question about the plurality of a word.

Imperial Guardsman

  • Bay Watcher
  • [FANATICISM INTENSIFIES]
    • View Profile
Re: Supernatural 7 - Day 1 - [1 REPLACEMENT NEEDED]
« Reply #299 on: June 12, 2014, 08:33:41 pm »

@IG A better explanation than 'I claimed because he claimed'.
Because that gives no details and poses the question, 'why'.

What I would most likely expect is you to NOT claim because it is confounding that you DID claim.
It's like your claim would somehow erase what he said there, despite me being able to click one link and see 'oh, flabort claimed'.

Now cut with the hypotheticals and give a straight answer to my questions, please.


PPE: Bleh, have to go to school.

To take the heat off of flabort.
/laugh
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 80